Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

non-Orthodox Jewish views on Resurrection

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=60451581&oldid=60150198 Someone with knowledge of the Conservative Jewish spectrum of opinion could please weigh in and see if my update is NPOV and accurate

David_Galenson

I'm not sure if this belongs here or at Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion. I created this article when I found nothing about this economist on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much information about him on the internet, so there could be Copyright and Original Research problems with the article. I would appreciate any comments. Phelantalk 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Listing it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion wouldn't go amiss if you don't intend to do any further work on it yourself. Some expansion of his study of artistic innovation would add interest to the article It needs some citations to support some of the claims - particularly "He has become famous..." which would be preferable if it was reworded ("His areas of study include..." possibly). Yomanganitalk 23:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva

I recently rewrote the Gilberto Silva article. Here is the big change: [1]

Specifically, I'd like to know if I have cited enough sources throughout the article, and if I've kept the 'Arsenal Career' section NPOV enough.

Also, how far off Good Article Status is the article? What can I change/add to get it up to Good Article Status?

Denis Law is an FA-rated football player bio (it's useful to see an example of what the perfect player bio page looks like).

Thanks for any feedback (and especially criticisms/suggestions), -GilbertoSilvaFan 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Flows quite well and isn't that far off the standard of the Denis Law article. Using dates in the sub-headings is probably not a good idea, at least until his playing career is over ("2002-present" could be wrong by tomorrow). Both the "Praise and Criticism" and "Trivia" sections would be better worked into the text - it will give it some life and remove these sections as point of view targets and places for dumping information without thought. Some of the sections are a little short to warrant splitting off, consider dropping some of the sub-headings. Also there is a real lack of references for important statements, such as "It was Gilberto's performance in this tournament which led to him being classed as one of the top defensive midfielders in the world" and "proving he was not just a watercarrier for the team" (the latter needs sources for why that was expected to be the case as well as some explanation). Yomanganitalk 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Voulet-Chanoine Mission

I've just finished writing Voulet-Chanoine Mission, and would like to hear some suggestions. Any advice or criticism would be immensely appreciated. The article took me considerable time, but as common with Africa-related topics, you often have to work in solitude, even when the argument treated is of considerable relevance (one of the greatest French colonial scandals).--Aldux 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and have a better look tomorrow, but from a very quick look I can see it needs at least copy editing for English usage. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Aldux! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. I applaud your use of references; here are some suggestions for improving the article:
Firstly, you may wish to add several images to the article, where it is appropriate to do so. To upload an image to Wikipedia, click on "Upload file" on the left toolbar, and follow the instructions. To make it appear in the article, add [[Image:FILENAME]], where FILENAME is the name of the image file, including the extension.
As Yomangani pointed out, the prose in the article needs some work. Spelling and grammatical errors must be fixed, and the article must maintain an encyclopediac tone. You may wish to check the article for spelling and grammatical errors, and fix them.
I think you could improve the structure of the article. The lead section must concisely summarize the article. In addition, headings like "The mission starts" and "Voulet's arrest is ordered" do not seem encyclopediac. I suggest you read articles on other military conflicts to get a feel of the expected structure of such articles.
I hope you will find this feedback useful. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the advice; I understand that the English is the main problem, but there's little there I can do, sadly, as I'm not a native speaker. The lead is an incredible blunder; thanks for remembering me. The sections titles are a disaster, I agree, but with all the time in wikipedia I still seem unable to decently partition an article of medium length. Thanks again,--Aldux 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Henry III of England

He was a King in England. Could you give ways that I could further improve this article? I am working on finding more sources. 0L1 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The section headings are a little strange - don't feel you have to have subheadings for every minor incident when there isn't enough text to support them. Take a look at Edward III of England and try and duplicate the structure in your article to some extent. The lead section needs to give a summary of the article, so the current version needs filling out (see WP:LEAD). Yomanganitalk 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Great - thanks for the advice. 0L1 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It could do with a longer introduction.Also, line citations would be a great thing. Durova 02:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Constitution of Thailand

I created an article on Constitution of Thailand and have brought it to a level which I think is acceptable in terms of comprehensiveness, references, and NPOV.I've tried to strike a good balance between having sufficient detail about specific constitutions and not trying to cover every single constitution in Thailand's history.I'd appreciate it if others could review this balance and suggest whether the article is either too detailed or not detailed engough.Thanks! Patiwat

  • It is well-balanced and mostly neutral in tone. I dislike the use of bolding terms which you think are important though - if you think the reader will miss the importance of these terms then explain them in more depth. You also don't need the controversy, key features and praise and criticism headings - working these into the text (for the most part this just means removing the headings) will make it flow better and reduce the appearence of bias. I think you done a good job in picking out some of the major changes, but some coverage of the "minor" constitutions would help to explain why the others have been singled out - perhaps you could dedicate a line or two to each in the list at the beginning. As a minor issue: the lead overuses "stipulates". Hope this helps Yomanganitalk 14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks!The controversy, key features, etc. headings were there to give readers breathers, since otherwise I was concerned some of the sections would seem to be too long.I'll take them out and add some detail about the minor constitutions as well.Your suggestions are greatl appreciated. XKMasada 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Rapid Plasma Reagin

I've expanded an article on the Rapid Plasma Reagin test used to screen for syphilis.I'd like to get feedback from a few people outside the medical community to see if it is readable to a lay person, while still offering something to a person with a medical background.Thanks.--Jfurr1981 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear. You might want to move "(Treponema pallidum)" from behind "syphilis" to behind "organism" to make it obvious that this is the organism and not the latin name for syphilis. Yomanganitalk 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a 14-year-old who did not study Biology, and I understand it perfectly. It's much easier to understand than many other Wikipedia articles on similar topics. I suggest you add internal links for related medical terms (such as bacterium). You've done a good job - keep it up! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


request for feedback on new article

Hi,

I wrote a new article called menstrual extraction, about a self-help technique developed by women before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Any advice/criticisms about how to improve it would be very welcome. (is it long enough? NPOV enough? Is it missing anything?)

Thanks, Cindery 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Good article.I've made some suggestions on the Discussion page. XKMasada 09:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some quick comments:
    • You should explain what it is in the lead - comparing it to another technique doesn't really help. At the moment it is necessary to read half the article before it is defined.
    • Try to use one style of citation - there is a Harvard style reference in the midst of the footnotes - and either remove the spaces between the punctuation and citations or include it consistantly
    • The discovery of the yoghurt is presented as being used by the police as evidence of a criminal act - this needs explaining since possession of yoghurt is not a crime. What justification did the police use to present this as evidence? Without that explanation the article becomes POV.
    • Although you mention other countries in the last paragraph the article is very US-centric. If you have little information about other countries you should still endeavour to make it clear when you are talking about the US. For example Wade v Roe didn't make abortion legal in other countries, so don't present it as a blanket statement.
    • Although pictures are normally requested to increase an article's appeal, I think you can give that a miss. Yomanganitalk 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Cindery! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.
While the article has plenty of references and footnotes (which is good), it lacks an External Links section. You should create an external links section and add some links to websites about menstrual extraction. In addition, some words/phrases which should have internal links do not.
Perhaps some restructuring is in order. The main body of the article (which excludes the lead section, and notes/references/external links section) could comprise three sections: one about the technical details of menstrual extraction, one about how it is used (as an alternative to abortion), and a section about reception to menstrual extraction (I'm sure an alternative method of abortion would be controversial).
You may wish to add an image to the article, where appropriate.
Hope this helps. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

...thanks for the feedback, you guys!that was really helpful. i have started work fixing things per your suggestions already, and i put your report on the menstrual extraction talkpage for future reference for me and other editors while the rest of the work is done. thanks again! Cindery 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comment about photographs. Obviously a photo of a procedure in progress would not be appropriate, but a picture of the machine would be exceedingly informative, and would add a great deal (especially to the section detailing the differences between the extractor and other types of vacuum extractors). Anchoress 04:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

..thanks. i think a visual could make the difference between MVA and ME clearer too. there actually is a little picture of the device under the first link in reference section--Janice Cortese (with a note saying:"includes picture of Del Em")but it's hidden away, and I couldn't use it because it is under copyright :-( Cindery 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Mifepristone

...I hate to be a "feedback hog,":-)but you gave such good advice I wanted to ask about this one too. (I put a lot of work into it, but so did other editors; I didn't start it.)It still needs some refs in the history section I think, and the "Use outside United States" should be expanded, I know...but how does it read overall for general reader, do you think?Does it have too many technical/medical terms?Should the product insert not be quoted verbatim in small type?Is it missing anything/NPOV enough? Does it go into too much detail about the fatalities? All criticism about how to improve it wanted and welcome. Thanks in advance, Cindery 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Quite comprehensive but there are few problems:
    • It is US-centric - FDA is not linked or explained; nearly all the statistics and data are US information; in the lead it is said it was initially available in France, but this is not mentioned again until late in the article - the history section should come before controversy to help balance this out.
    • I would put "Other possible uses" before controversy as well - since the controversy section is such a large part of the article it looks biased to have it so close to the beginning of the article.
    • The lead states "it is useful in humans an abortifacient...", this should be rephrased with a more neutral tone ("its uses are...") as "useful" suggests a POV.
    • Its uses for the treatment of endocrine conditions receives little further coverage after the lead.
    • Citation styles are mixed with footnotes and external links right next to each other
    • There are incidences of "US" and "U.S." right next to each other, and 60-mg,200mg and 200 mg (the manual of style recommends value then a space then the unit).
    • The clinical trials section needs more information: what dosages were the women on, what symptoms were they being treated for, what was the sample size?
    • The quoting of the packaging label is awkward after the contraindications have been listed above (and the quotes aren't closed anyway) - I'd list this information in the same way you handled the information above it.
    • There are a lot of medical opinions on its immunosuppressant effects and not many for the opposing view, but the section isn't badly balanced considering, and that may just be all the information there is available.
    • The "History" and "Politics and use outside the United States" sections are confused. History should probably only cover the point up to launch.
    • It needs more references as it is an emotive subject that is liable to be challenged if references are not provided (and probably even then).
    • Further wikilinking of some medical terms would be beneficial if the articles exist. Yomanganitalk 22:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much.Those are all excellent criticisms--I have begun adopting them already, and I archived your report on the talkpage for other editors to consult.

Cindery 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Foundation for Equal Families

This is my first article I have written, so any suggestions would be greatly appreaciated.Thanks. --Gay Cdn(talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Quite clear and well structured but lacking a little in substance. It overuses subheadings and underuses wikilinks to other articles.
    • There are a lot of terms and events that need further explanation, for example, what did Bill 167 propose exactly and why was it defeated? What is an intervener? What were the arguments and outcomes in the cases mentioned (links to external websites don't make for a good article, as if the site is removed so is the article content)?
    • There is no explanation of the actions or results in any of the activities the group undertook. Why did the government settle? Was the new bill a concession to the demands made by the group?
    • The education section claims that "The education portion of the mandate was achieved...", yet the mandate stated in the lead does not mention education.
    • The group is stated to be dormant in the lead, yet no mention of this is made later on.
    • The lead should be an introduction and summary (see WP:LEAD), so the information in the lead should be re-covered in greater depth in the body of the article.
Hope this helps Yomanganitalk 23:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Gay Cdn! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here are some issues with the article:
The article is poorly structured. You should use ==second-level headings==, not ===third-level headings===. Third-level headings are used for further organization of content in second-level headings. You should use second-level headings for broad categorization of information: for example, a section on the history and founding of the organization, another section on the people behind the organization, a section on its activities, and a section on controversies it has been involved in, and so on. Good layout, structure and organization will make the article easier to read, and will help the article achieve broad coverage of the organization, which is one of the Good Article criteria.
The article also lacks internal links. Try adding internal links to articles on related topics. To make a phrase an internal link, enclose it in [[square brackets]]. The "Also see" section should be renamed "See also". In addition, I noticed that the article does not have references, unless the links such as "Vriend v. Alberta - Supreme Court of Canada" could be used as references; in that case, add them to a References section.
I hope you find my feedback useful. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I Not Stupid

While I have previously written two articles, Google Groups and Homerun (film), this is my first attempt at completely rewriting an existing article. When I found this article on one of Singapore's most notable movies, it was a total mess and full of fancruft. Over a week, I completely rewrote the article, and all the prose (though not all the information) in the article was written by me.

I am trying to improve I Not Stupid to Good Article status. While I appreciate all forms of feedback, here are some areas where feedback is most needed:

  • I always have difficulty with referencing: both with finding references and formatting them. Unlike the two articles I wrote, when rewriting this article, I made a genuine attempt to find some good references. Which parts of the article need more references? Do you have any suggestions for finding more good references, particularly for sections which lack references?
  • Parts of the article were written in a hurry late at night. Which areas need copy-editing, and are there any specific recurring mistakes that I should correct with my copy-editing? (In a past RFF for Homerun (film), someone pointed out that I kept repeating the word "shoes".)
  • Is the article "broad in its coverage" of I Not Stupid (this is part of the good article criteria)? If not, what areas do I need to write about to achieve broad coverage? (I don't expect to achieve the comprehensiveness of a featured article.)

I hope the Requests for feedback system I created will be useful in helping me get feedback on one of my articles! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It's quite comprehensive, so I don't think you need to worry about the broad coverage aspect, although critical reception could stand expanding with some actual opinions from critics. The political satire section is unreferenced (having none). You can nearly always find the original or alternative sources in English on Google by feeding it variations on the statements you need to source, but I'm not sure how expansive the Singporean web is. The prose is better than it was in Homerun, with less repetition and over explanation, but there were still a couple of examples. I found the plot section a little disjointed - this section in Homerun had a good flow to it, but here it is choppy and there are places where the paragraphs contain unconnected events. Some more specific comments on the text:
    • "Terry provides voice-over narration throughout the movie, particularly to introduce the characters at the beginning of the movie." - if it is throughout the movie how can it be particularly at the beginning?
    • "Boon Hock comes from a poor family...nevertheless he is loyal" - no reason to assume poor people wouldn't be loyal.
    • "The company Mr Liu works for hires an American, John, as Creative Director, and promotes Mr Liu's friend, Ben, to Creative Group Head." - there's no context for this. Why did they do it?
    • "Just before he jumps off the flat" - jumps from the flat window? jumps off the flats' roof?
    • "After Mrs Khoo and Selena thrash things out..." do they have an argument? "Thrash things out" can also mean plan something or resolve matters.
    • "When it was released, Money No Enough was the only Singaporean film with higher earnings than I Not Stupid." - this isn't clear. Which came first?
    • With earnings of over S$4 million, I Not Stupid Too overtook the original film as the all-time second highest grossing movie in Singapore. - this is repeated.
    • I'm not sure you need the "See Also" section - I Not Stupid Toois linked in the text.
Hope this helps, Yomanganitalk 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Texture filtering

I just did a major rewrite of the article on texture filtering. As this is my first big wikipedia contribution I was hoping I could get some feedback on it, particularly with regards to encyclopedic style, layout, etc. Here's the link to the diff page. Thanks! - Valarauka 13:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Your changes make it much clearer; the structure and layout are mostly OK (see below) and the style and tone are fine. The problems I see with the article at the moment are:
    • It does not cite any sources, so appears to be original research (which is against policy)
    • The intro is more of a definition than a summary of the article. Please look at WP:LEAD to see what the purpose and structure of the lead should be.
    • The article doesn't really tell us why we need texture filtering - this should be stated in the lead, and explained further in the "Need for filtering" section. Although you've linked to artifacts, a sentence on why they are and why they are undesirable would make this clearer to a novice.
    • The second and third paragraphs of the "Need for filtering" section discuss general theory of texture mapping rather than the need for it. Perhaps split them off into their own section?
Hope this helps. Yomanganitalk 09:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate your comments. I'd already figured it needed some citations, will dig up something from a graphics text or whitepaper. The rest of it is all valid, I'll see what I can do. Thanks! Valarauka 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Article on W.E.Jones

I gather it may be unaccepted. Ok. I need help - I'm new and confused. May have to give-up! Osborne.

I think the problem with the Eifion Jones article is that it does not establish notability. In order for an article to merit inclusion on Wikipedia there must be some assertion that the subject is worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. You can establish this in the article by giving references from third party works that prove that he is recognised as an expert in his field. In addition the article has several point of view statements such as "He was a well-liked lecturer and his enthusiasm was imparted to students". All wikipedia articles should written from a neutral point of view so this type of expression is discouraged. Yomanganitalk 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Beat (film)

I've revised this several times. Having trouble understanding how to make things link and the following words show purple not blue in my attempt - genre, Protagonist, Action film, Drama film, sequence, The Shawshank Redemption.

A beat, in film is an Event, Decision or Discovery that significantly alters the way the Protagonist pursues their Goal. Beats are specific, measured and spaced to create a pacing element that moves the progress of the story forward. Uneven or erratic beats will be felt by the audience as either slow-usually the most forgettable or often tedious parts of a film-or stretches of film that jolt the audience unnecessarily.

Every cinematic genre has a beat that is specific to it’s development. Action film has significantly more Beats (usually Events) while Drama film has fewer beats (usually Protagonist Decisions or Discovery). Between each beat a sequence occurs. The sequence is often a series of scenes that relates to the last beat and leads up to the next beat.

In most American films the beat will fall approximately every five minutes. Following is a beat example from The Shawshank Redemption:

At 25 minutes: Andy talk to Red and asks for rock hammer. - Decision

At 30 minutes: Andy gets rock hammer. - Event

At 35 minutes: Andy risks his life to offers financial advice to Mr. Hadley. - Decision

At 40 minutes: Andy notes ease of carving his name in the wall. - Discovery

At 45 minutes: Mr. Hadley beats Bogs severely. Event

After each beat above a significant series of results takes place in the form of the sequence, but what most people remember are the beats, the moment something takes place with the [Protagonist]. More information on Beat Structure is provided in Anatomy of A Screenplay, Dan Decker.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28film%29"

  • They show as purple rather than blue because you have visited the links previously (they show as blue for me). The links are fine in the article, but you do need to do is provide some evidence that this article is is not original research (which is not permitted on Wikipedia). I've listed the book you referred to as a reference, but you should give some more details about it such as publisher, date and ISBN number. You should also add any other material you used as sources for the article under the "References section". Yomanganitalk 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

the city of vianen in the netherlaNDS- location!!

hI,

AS I WAS BORN IN THE CITY OF VIANEN, IN THE NETHERLANDS.. I WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT VIKIPEADIA MOOVED MY CIRY OF BIRTH FROM ZUIDHOLLAND PROVINCE TO UTRECHT PROVINCE....

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/nl-zh-va.html

MY PAS WORD SAYSvIANEN....ZUIDHOLLAND , AS PLACE OF BIRTH NOT UTRECHT..

I HOPE SOME ONE WIL READ THIS AND SET THINGS RIGHT,


<email removed>

Wim Verdoold.

Vianen was transferred from Zuid-Holland to Utrecht on 1 January 2002. See here. The information in Wikipedia is therefore correct. Errabee 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bandung

Bandung is a city in Indonesia. I found this article and have had contributed a major editing. Yesterday (21/08/2006), I've put this article in the WP:GA nominee list. In just a few hours, it was delisted and tagged as having WP:NPOV in dispute. As far as my concern, there is no dispute about its neutrality. In the talk page, the reason of having NPOV in dispute because the article looks like a travel agent brochure and there is no mention of events that I don't know about it. I need a feedback from independent readers here, whether the article has NPOV enough. Does the article look like a travel agent brochure? Thank you very much in advance for your responses. This is the last diff page that I remember before I edited to the current page [2]. Cheers. — Indon 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

project the dears, next season

Dear sir,

I am new user on your system, I try many ways to e-mail my question over the wide web, but kept getting blocked walls. I didn't want to join your system has a user. I just wanted to post this this Question: are you or any of your staff going to make the next season of the DearS for contact 5 thru 8 in the dvds set. has are now, they in book novels only. I would love to have them in dvd set, to add to my library set..I've enjoy the DearS program in dvd setting, i wish to see more of the same. I am only a veiwer of your program shows. And wish to see more of the same, I been veiwing your dvd show over a web site called Http://www.Netflix.com and buy soon dvd program on web site, to add to my library listing.. so keep up with your good work, in these program.

New user pmadams_98

ps, i am not sure what i am to do now in your system, I just wanted to leave feedback here..and hope to see more of your funny program, they have me in tears when i watch them.. and have enjoy them alot, thanks.

One other thing! i know nothing about program or how to write about your story here, I am just a veiwer. i am just going to save the page

Are you trying to get into Unusual requests? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

TOV E. Rose, Celebrity Chaplain

Note: The entire article was posted here, minutes before it was speedy deleted for being non-notable. I've removed it (we can always put it back from history) and asked Toviaheli what feedback they wanted. Yomanganitalk 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite good

Wikipedia is going quite good as it is a free encyclopedia. Everybody should be greatful that it is free and shouldn't criticize it alot. Well, Wikipedia does have some errors but don't everyone make mistakes. it is a good effort for Wikipedia to exist on our internet.

Ummm, I think you posted this is the wrong place. This is an area to discuss and review edits to articles and possible imiprovements, not to discuss the pros and cons of Wikipedia. You may find the article on Wikipedia of interest. 0L1 14:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Virtua Tennis

I hoping to improve this article, but I would like to know in what ways it could improve. Thankyou for any help that you can offer. 0L1 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It needs expanding with some details on the gameplay, development and more on the characters and critical reception. Take a look at the recently promoted Featured Article Shadow of the Colossus for an example of how you could expand the article. Yomanganitalk 23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Telephone_federal_excise_tax

This is a significant “current event”, after all, its not every day that the US Government throws in the towel on collecting a tax and admits that it has been unlawfully collecting it for the past hundred or so years. I would like to eventually work this article up to featured status by the time tax time comes around next year, as that would be both timely and relevant. Any feedback that can be provided would be appreciated, specifically on what additional information could be added and any additional sections that should be added, and also your suggestions on the use of "Effective partial repeal" (see talk page for history) for a header, or if there would be a more eloquent term to describe the situation. --Shortfuse 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Shortfuse! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Please note that Featured Article standards are very high, and it will be very difficult to get your article to featured status. I suggest you aim for Good Article status instead; You may wish to read the good article criteria and send the article for peer review.
Thanks for the suggestions. Do you have a paticularly well formated artical you could point me to as an example? I have put it in for a Peer Review as well. --Shortfuse 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read other articles on similar topics (laws that have been repealed) to get an idea on how such articles should be structured. The article needs more information on why the US government considered repealing the law, and the reactions to the law being repealed.
I'm sorry I couldn't give more useful feedback - I'm short of time. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, I have made a note of them and will try to include them in a revision! --Shortfuse 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

St. George's School, Ascot

St George's School, Ascot is a independent boarding and day school in Ascot, Berkshire, England. It is a single-sex girls school, which selects all of its incoming students on the basis of examined ability, usually at age 11, with a few entrants at 13 and 16. Carole Jordan is the current headmistress of the school.

Hey there, I assume this is Cowarth, as this person edited the most on the article. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia, though it seems you've been around since September the 5th. Before going to the article, I just want you to know (or read) WP:NOTABLE to understand which topics are notable and which ones are not. However it seems the school topic is in progress :P. For the article itself, it is a really good start, with good content and outline. Also, I like that you've included references, as it will satisfy WP:OR and WP:V (sorry about the shortcuts! :P). However, according to WP:MOS, the subheadings should be in lowercase, except the first letter of course. But if its a particular name, you shouldn't be worry about it. And also try to make the flow of the article looks nice by re-organising the subheadings, like, The Grounds and Hall could be under one subheadings called Places or something like that. I noticed the Old girls part and I don't really understand what that means, of course it wouldn't be really nice if you call someone "old" heheheh. Moreover, some pictures could improve the quality of the article, but ensure you've got the right to publish it. Last but not least, try using WP:CITET for references. Actually I'm learning about it as well, so lets learn together! Finally, happy editing! If you have something to ask, don't hesitate to post it on my talk page. Cheers -- Imoeng 08:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Referencing

Please see a request in the Discussion/talk currently at the top of the page

(MacAuslan 10:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In particular, it's about how to use the 'Harvard' (better known, in my view, as (author-date) sytem) system of referencing in the article on Harvard Referencing...

Of course, I'd be grateful for feedback...

MacAuslan 11:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, MacAuslan. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Please ask any questions about Harvard referencing at the Help desk, and read Wikipedia's help page on Harvard referencing. If you are seeking feedback on an article, please include a link to that article. To add a link to an article, enclose the article name in double square brackets. For example, [[Google Groups]] links to the Google Groups article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles

I submitted an article "First Aerial Victory by the US military."It was my first submission, and it was apparently deleted.I can't find how to go to Recently Deleted Articles and I want to know why it was deleted.

Bobby Jim Follow this link: [3](although there has been nothing deleted with that exact name). Yomanganitalk 19:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

a poem written by Milton Vishnu Williams - fair heart wounded

I was a friend of Milton and his wife Dorothy some years back, he wrote this poem for me about me and although i did have a morden tower book containing this poem, i have misplaced it as the years have passed - i would like to know if anyone has a copy of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elle-crossley (talk • contribs)

I've edited your comment so it doesn't stretch the page, FYI.
At any rate, I think this question might be more appropriate for the reference desk which specializes in knowledge questions and the like.Also, did you try searching?You are editing an encyclopædia after all. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hide&Reason 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura

[4] (My most recent edit cf. the version before my first)

Spent the last few days fiddling.Here's what I've done:

  • Revised sections:
    • Intro--More than just an opening line needed, perhaps?
    • Gameplay--Talking about the gameplay's dichotomy and then explaining the two sides of the combat system seems like a logical way of doing it.Keeps a good flow to the article.
    • Trivia--Disorganised and, like most of the page, was pivoted around Fallout.Bulletpoint is beautiful.
    • Half-ogre Island conspiracy--Discussion consensus was that it was far too large.Cut down and rewritten for general readership.
  • My additions:
    • Development--Slim pickings, I'm afraid.There's just an all-round scarcity of data for the game, unforunately.
    • Reception--I'm new to WP's referencing system.Tell me if I've made a mistake.
    • Soundtrack--I hope there's no copyvio as regards the embedded link. I figured that if major distributors are giving you the OST, it must be legit.

As for the Locations and Races info, I'm undecided about whether to cull them, or remove them to a separate article altogether.I've really just (partially) wikified it and tightened up the language.They make the menu irritatingly long, frankly.

Glad to hear anything you've got. Hide&Reason 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about article creation

Dear friends at Wikipedia,

Am I able to post a putative hypothesis of the creation of the universe, that offers a different explaination of the creation of the universe other than the currently accepted big bang?

Kind regards, Mick <email removed>

You probably would have wanted to ask this at the Help Desk, but since you're here I'll answer you anyway.In short, the answer is no, unless you have some way of verifying that this "theory" is verifiable and not Original Research, which it sure sounds like.In general, you should try to cite reliable academic publications discussing the validity of the theory in your article, or it is unlikely it will stay.—Keakealani 07:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Minamata disease

I'd like to get some feedback on the Minamata disease article that I've been editing for the past few months now. I've been working mainly on the History section to explain how the disease was discovered and handled afterwards. I'm planning to edit and reference the Compensation and Democratizing effects sections soon and also add a section about the way the disaster was handled by the local and national government. Any comments big or small would be most welcome! Bobo12345 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very well written if you ask me, but citation no 2 is used too much, so maybe some more sources are needed? Still, bravo from me, that should be a WP:GA some time soon. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

India Christian Mission Church ( 1897 AD )

Dear Sir,

Greetings.

Our Church should also be enlisted in the Churches of India. The name of our founder The Revd.Arthur Stephen Paynter ( England) may also be included in the list of Missionaries to India.

The name of our Bishops : The Most Revd.N.Victor Amrutha Rao and the Rt.Revd.Dr.N.JOHN SD Raju may also be added in the list of Bishops in India.

Please visit us at : http:// heal.up.to

Mr.A.R.Lawrence, Diocesan Secretary, Diocese of Krishna Godavary

You may edit these articles yourself, see Editing Wikipedia for details. Yomanganitalk 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Arthur Stephen Paynter is now a stub. Talskiddy 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Brain-computer interface

Hi, over the past month, I've made what I hope are substantial improvements to Brain-computer interface and wanted to please request some feedback about what needs to be done to get it up to good article status. Several months ago the article failed to receive 0.5 wiki status, and since I've begun editing I've been working through a list of things I thought needed doing (see Talk:Brain-computer_interface#Addressing issues outlined in 0.5 Nom). I think the article still has some way to go before reaching good status but I'd really like to know what the top priorities should be for future edits. NB: I haven't provided before and after comparisons because the highh volume of edits. Thanks Saganaki- 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Saganaki, how are you? You seem like a very good editor, I can see it on your article. For me, it is a good article, and I am sure it will pass WP:GA soon. You have plenty of inline citations, which is great, reasonable length of introduction and I really like your headings style. To improve it, I think you should get rid off the red links. If you can, it would be awesome if you make stubs, or else, try to reduce the red links. Also, try to add more images, like, BCI in human, if you can. Images are good to visualise what you are saying. One last thing is the portal link, I usually put that under "See also" section. Apart from those things, the article rocks! Way to go!! Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Imoeng, that a steer in the right direction --Saganaki- 06:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gary McSheffery

Could people give me feedback on the article what needs to be changed etc?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathan Hoey (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 October 2006(UTC)

Hello, umm, Nathan Hoey, how are you? Strangely I couldn't seem to see your edit on the article, but that is alright. You've got a good start with the article, with infobox template, good lead section and enough wikilinks. However I cannot comment much on this article since there is not much information at present. So, you can put {{footybio-stub}} to tag the article as a stub. Stub doesn't mean "bad", it means it needs some major expansion, which I'm sure you'll find it easy. Another thing is references, try look at WP:REF for references. It is important to avoid original research and neutral point of view. Moreover, inline citations are extremely important, which you'll need for WP:GA and WP:FA. Try using citation templates. Lastly, you can put his photo on the article. Okay, maybe that will be all for now, if you have any question, don't hesitate to ask me or go to the help desk. Good luck, take care -- Imoeng 20:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie Battles

Heya,

I'd like to get some feedback on the above page. It started out very how-toy, and I think I've dealt with a lot of it, and I'm planning to do even more, but what else needs to be changed? Does it need more pictures? Wooty 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Heya too, Wooty, how are you? I like the article, it is very informative, although I can still smell the "how-to" tone there. I like the images best, because those can visualise what you are saying, and because it is a game, people have to see it. However I reckon you should make them smaller as they take about more than half of the page width. Okay, here is the list of things you can improve.
  • The most important thing, citation, and I couldn't see any single one of them, which is, um, needs to be done. If you don't put any citation, I am afraid you will fail Neutral Point of View and Original Research and other stuff you don't want to hear :P. Read Footnotes for help.
  • As the article mainly discusses about the gameplay, you can also write about the development and public perception. You can easily gather references or citations for this one, of course.
  • When I read the article, again, how-to tone is somewhat still there, also it is somewhat like a list of information. Try improve the prose of the article, it is important to pass good article.
  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), we should avoid linking headings, but I reckon it is alright for your article, as the information under each heading is not that much to use "main article template".
  • I also see separator line between ARC Trooper and Imperialists section. Is there any missing heading?
  • Lastly, per Lead Section, the "title words" in the lead section should be bolded, I can help you with that.
With this amount of information, you only need citations and fix the flow of the article, and I am sure it will pass WP:GA and maybe WP:FA soon. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Maserati MC12

I rewrote the article and would like to extend it further. This is the major edit I made [5] but I have since added a bit more. I know it needs more pictures, and I am currently looking but because it is such a rare vehicle there are few pictures that aren't under copyright. What I would like to know is what should be added to make it better? Thanks... James086 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello James086 how are you? I've just read the article and I think it is a good article, with reasonable amount of information and nice photo. Another thing, which is probably one of the most important thing is the inline citations, which great, you've used citation template and you can see the result, its great. For the improvements, I think I will just list it here, alright?
  • Inline citation should be put after punctuation per manual of style
  • By looking at Wikipedia:Lead Section, your lead section should be longer, you could write about the development, in brief. Also you can also write about notable buyer, as its pretty expensive, of course, if you can find the info.
  • When I read the whole article, it still needs prose improvement, because at the moment it still looks like a list of information. Try expand each bit of information a bit more.
Well that is all for now, I will help you with the inline citation format though, as its pretty stressing thing to do by yourself. If you have satisfied, please put it back here, so we can see the improvements. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 10:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I will work on what you have suggested. Also thanks for the help with inline citation. James086 15:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian Hedonism

Hi, I'd like to know more about Christian Hedonism, the present stub seems not enough. Would I have any chance to enjoy a full article on this subject in the near future? Thanks, - 221.121.33.118 04:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I suggest you be BOLD: create an account and contribute to the article (then seek feedback on your contributions here)! If you have no intention to contribute to the article (for example, because you lack sufficient expertise in the subject), you may list it at Requests for expansion. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Surfactin and Dwarf Crocodile

  • Surfactin This I think was a copy/paste from a paper on the subject at this revision. I thought it had sufficient notability to not get an outright deletion request so I trimmed it a lot and wikified it the best I could.
  • Dwarf Crocodile This I found with only a single line of text succintly describing the animal. As a good article on this animal was lacking, I found the links at References and made a composite text that reflected the websites' information.

Any corrections regarding grammar and organization are most welcome to any of these articles. Dracontes 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Surfactin

Hello Dracontes, sorry for the late reply. I have read the Surfactin article and I think it has a good potential to pass good article. I know I keep saying that but I am honest :). The best thing about the article is good amount of information and use of inline citations. I really like the way you used it, with the right formatting as well. I also noticed the stub template at the bottom of the article, which I think should be removed as the article is not a stub. The prose of the article is also great! Okay this is the downside of the article

  • Because the subject matter is very technical, why don't you put some pre-explanation about the topic before you get to the real topic? I saw a guideline that a great article should contain enough info that the reader do not have to look up another article. Probably it will be worth to try.
  • You could also put some images to help us understand better.

So thats all for now, if you can, please put that article here again so we can see the improvements. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 09:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (oh yeah, I will comment on the other article as well)

Dwarf Crocodile

While Surfactin has heaps of inline citations, I cannot see why you can't put citations on Dwarf Crocodile as well. With that kind of specific information (which is great!), I reckon you can easily find many sources and put them to the article. Just a suggestion, you might want to see citation template (have I told you this? :P). You can also expand the lead section, and read lead section if you want. It has helped me to write better lead sections :). The last thing is probably to expand the content of each headings, because those are still look empty. Apart from these things, the article is really good. If you have some questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 07:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Baseball scorekeeping - cleanup

This page has been tagged for cleanup since June, so being a former official scorer, and still one of those people who keeps score at every game I go to, I did a complete rewrite of it back in August.Except I'm having trouble getting other baseball people to read through the entire thing, and I don't want to just go replacing the entire original article without some feedback and/or improvement from other knowledgeable editors.

My new version is a user subpage (User:Dakern74/Baseball_scorekeeping) for the moment, and you can feel free to leave comments there.Thanks. -- dakern74 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello how are you? Sorry for the late reply, but I am not a baseball dude :P. So, hmm, you have got plenty of information there, and I can see you are an expert in these things, well done. However, I have seen people who understand very much about the subject matter on the article often do not put citation whatsoever. I can understand this because people already know the information without any resource. That is why, my first and the most important feedback is to add heaps of citations, preferably inline citations. I am afraid, if you do not put any citation, you will fail original research and verifiability. I will list some possible improvements
  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), you should avoid linking any heading, so it is better to put {{See also|blahblablah}} after the content of one heading/subheading.
  • The main thing I notice is the flow of the article, which is in dot points. I also understand this is like a guide of baseball scoring, but you have to be carefull of What Wikipedia is Not. With many dot points, people may think it is a "how-to" article. I also once made an article made of lists, but then many people told me to avoid lists.
  • I cannot emphasize enough that you need inline citations, or maybe for the first step, general references will do. Also try to put See also section at the bottom.
Maybe that is all for now, if you have any question or disagreement, please do not hesitate to put it on my talk page. Good luck, all the best and take care -- Imoeng 02:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Eugene Schieffelin

Wrote a new bio of Eugene Schieffelin...

All of the European starlings in the USA are here because a guy named Eugene Schieffelin imported a flock from England and in 1890 released them into New York's Central Park.There are now 200 million European starlings in the USA, as a result.

Thanks for taking a look.

Phowitt 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC) phowitt

Hello Phowitt, welcome to Wikipedia! You might want to design your userpage, it is fun, hehehe. It is a good start, really, you have got the basic information about him, you just need to expand it a little bit more. I also noticed it has been around for only 6 days, well done. Here are some things you can improve.
  • Firstly, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for a complete things you need to know about biographies in Wikipedia. You also might want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography to learn more about it.
  • As I always said, citations and references are the most important things you need to know, probably more important than the content itself :P. Because even though you have written 20000 words, it is useless without any citation. Inline citations are desirable.
  • I should have written this first, that Eugene Schieffelin should be a notable person to be in Wikipedia, try to read Wikipedia:Notability (people).
  • I noticed many external links in the main content of the article, which I have rarely seen before. I mean, I haven't read any policy about that, but it is just not very popular style.
Maybe that is all for now, but please, please, I really want to see any improvement on the article. Probably I will add it to my watchlist, but you can also bring it back here. Good luck, all the best and take care -- Imoeng 02:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI Imoeng, the page that says to not put external links in the article body is Wikipedia:External links. Specifically, it says that links not used as references should only be in the External links section. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Saxifrage! Imoeng 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

John Robbins

The John Robbins article was mostly plagarized, so I re-wrote it.It should be checked for NPOV.--Karuna8 23:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty NPOV to me.I'm going to go in and do a little grammar-nazi copy-editing, but other than that it's a promising start and I can see it doing well. —Keakealani 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Essawiki

Please consider my user page as an innovative concept of interest, and give me feedback. That would be very much appreciated.

Wikipedia is not a place to write essays on the topics found here, so unfortunately your idea is not acceptable. This is from WP:NOT:
“ Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:...Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles. ”

I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing in other ways. Yomanganitalk 00:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Photography

I have been working on a photography portal, but I am new around here and I need losts of feedback and/or editing help.Also, I would like to know where to place it to get more people interested in working on it.-Gphoto 22:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed on the user's talk page. Imoeng 09:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Gateau Affairs

I just made the table. I understand that it is not really Wikified. any other things that I can improve on?--Tdxiang 09:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello tdxiang, how are you? You said "I just made the table", which table do you mean? I will just review the whole article, alright? You have got enough information there, which is good. I also think you have understood about lead section and wikilinks. Here are some possible improvements.
  • For the lead section, you can expand it a bit more, by writing about where does it aired, are there other countries airing this show and stuff like that.
  • Again, sorry but I have to say this, citations. Moreover, inline citations are extremely important to satisfy no original research and verifiability. I remember that time when my article got deleted :(, but I am sure you can do better than me.
  • I saw a spoiler plot template there, but I could not see the closing template.
  • When I read the synopsis, I found that the sentences are rather monotone, sorry to say this. Probably you can vary the length of the sentences and make the prose better. Above all, if you have great amount of info, the delivery would significantly improve it.
  • Try to put "see also" and "external links" section. They are not compulsory, but they will make it a real article (I mean, its not common to have an article without them).
Again, this is a great start, please do not stop expanding it. If you have some more questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Good luck and take care. Cheers -- Imoeng 09:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Tdxiang! I don't need to introduce myself; we know each other! This article needs a lot of work.
  • Firstly, the article does not provide a broad coverage of its subject, which is one of the Good Article criteria. The article should contain more information about the show, besides the plot. For example, how was it produced? What did critics think? Were there any sequels?
  • Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While comprehensiveness is good, the Character and Synopsis sections contain too much detail, to the level of being fancruft. Please try to write in summary style.
  • In addition, the article does not have any references. Please find some references, and add some internal links and external links to improve the structure of the article.
I hope you find my feedback useful, and use it to improve the article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Blade Heart

This article of a show was just created today. I'd like to know how to improve on it. Thanks.--Tdxiang 10:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, you sure is a great contributor :)!! For this time, probably I will not give as much comment as before, since the content is fewer than your previous article. However the current information is pretty good, I can see some good points in the infobox. Also, do not forget about citations, since probably it is as important as the content itself. When I looked at your previous article, also this article, I think you will find reading lead section is good to improve your lead sections. Okay, maybe that is all for now. But please come back if you have expanded the article a bit more. Good luck and take care - I<font color="blue">moeng 11:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Maserati

This is a Template that would go on the end of articles (namely Maserati vehicles). This is the first template I have made and would like to know if there are any changes that need to be made before putting it on the bottom of suitable articles? Perhaps the date structure should be changed, I don't know. Also check out the talk page for the general format that I followed when making it. Thanks, James086 13:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, James086, how are you? Wow you sure a Maserati ultimate fan! :P The template is already looking good actually, you have done a great job and the date is fine, I reckon. I have tried to improve it myself but I couldn't, ahahahha. Here are some points
  • Try to add an edit button so other users can change or modify the template easily. Just a small "e" on the bottom right of the template is fine.
  • I noticed for the 3200 GT, the GT is not on the same line as the 3200. I don't know whether its my browser or what. If it happens in yours, try to fix that.
  • Although "Racing Vehicle" is a bit off topic, I think it won't harm.
  • Probably you should list all the models, although there will be too many red links. When other Maserati fans look at the redlinks, it is possible they will make a new article for that particular model. Just a suggestion, maybe a bad suggestion :P
As I said, it is already looking good. Maybe in the future you can make Wikipedia:WikiProject Maserati. Click the link!! :P Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm back. Thanks for the quick and useful feedback :). I have tried everything you recommended except I left the racing vehicles on. If the racing vehicles section makes the template too red with links or it doesn't really fit it can go. I added the edit button, the red linked cars and trimmed it a bit so it didn't have a long bit of blank. The 3200 GT is all on one line for me so it may be your browser, screen resolution or maybe it's mine. If it only appears to be good for me then it should be changed. I'm going to look at it on another computer this afternoon so I will change it then if it doesn't fit. I'm going to start putting it on the ends of articles now, Thanks again. James086 02:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Meg Griffin

This is an article about the fictional character from the animated show, Family Guy. I've made some pretty major edits (see differences) to the page in the last week concerning the article's length and quality, which has met with some resistance from fans of the show. I have concerns that much of the information on this page is not encyclopedic, and may instead be more appropriate on a fansite like The Family Guy Wiki. We have not gotten into an edit war (yet). The talk page has more details. Please weigh in. Thank you. --C-squared 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, C-squared! Unfortunately, it is difficult to give feedback on your edit, because your edit is primarily deletion of a large section of text. It is generally bad form to remove large sections of text from an article, but I understand that you were removing fancruft. If you have not contributed significantly to the article, and need suggestions on how to improve it, you can seek a peer review. After you make further contributions to the article (in the form of writing, not deletions), you may wish to come back here and seek feedback. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks—this has been very helpful. --C-squared 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How is my first article?

I just did a little work to my page on [Steven Vaiani] the drummer for [An Albatross].

I feel as if my links are not great. They work fine but they all have those brackets around them. Also, sometime the thumbnail pic shows up and sometimes it apears as a text link to the picture.

Those are my thoughts. I hope it is ok. I look forward to working with this site, as I have been an avid user for well over a year now.

thanks, Thomas Kachel

Hello Thomas Kachel, how are you? Welcome to Wikipedia! First of all, to make a wikilink (internal link) you only need to put the Wikipedia address, which is the first words you see on each page, for example, [[Steven Vaiani]]. What you did is, you put the whole url. If you want to put the whole url, you only need one square bracket.
So, about the article, you have got a nice lead section, sufficient information, so we know what is the article about. First of all I'd like you to compare with another drummer article, and I can only think of one drummer, Mike Portnoy, although I is not a good example, since it has no citation whatsoever. Speaking about citation, Wikipedia will always ask editors to put citations or references, so you will not categorised as Original Research and non-Neutral Point of View. If you fail these things, I am afraid people have no choice but to delete it (I learned from my mistake :P). Noticed I have added "stub" template at the bottom, you might want to read WP:STUB to know more about it. By the way, have you read Help:Starting a new page and Help:Editing? These will really help you improve. So now, try to expand it a bit more, then come back here because I really want to see the article improve (its nice to see any improvement!). I also have added the article to my Wikipedia:watchlist so I can help you with some particular things. If you have any question, just drop me a message on my talk page or ask it to the help desk. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have found a better article for a comparison, although I like Mike Portnoy more :D. Try to look at Travis Barker. Notice how the citation works. Oh yeah, I haven't told you about inline citation, please look at the link. Also, I have removed a statement that contained no neutral point of view, such as "talented drummer". To keep these sort of statements, you need to add citations after the statement. There are really many things to learn, as I'm also still learning now. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

American Mutoscope and Biograph Company

Because of my own time constraints, and the difficulty obtaining proper form in this article, I am requesting feedback on the article American Mutoscope and Biograph Company.

Thank you,

--Roger the red 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Roger the red! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. I must commend your excellent use of references; I'd never be able to write an article with 24 references! However, I noticed that some of the references (as of time of writing: 3, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23 and 24) are simple links with no extra information. For these references, you should provide additional information, preferably using the {{cite web}} format.
The article's main weakness is in structure and organization. Here are several suggestions for improving the structure and organization of the article:
  • The lead section is quite weak, and needs improvement. You may wish to read Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections. The lead section should state what American Mutoscope and Biograph Company is (which it does), establish its notability and summarize the entire article. In addition, you may wish to add an infobox at the top of the article.
  • I think the article focuses too much on the history of the movie studio. Therefore, it fails to provide "broad coverage", one of the good article criteria. You should create a "History" section, and make "Founding", "D.W. Griffith" and "Decline" sections subsections of the History section. For broad coverage, please provide information about other aspects of the company. For example: What were its most notable productions? What did critics say about the company and its productions? How was the company organized?
  • There are no images in the article. Although images are not required, it would be useful to have some images in the article. As they say, an article without images is like an emperor without clothes. To upload an image to Wikipedia, click on "Upload file" on the left menu, and follow the instructions. To include the image in the article, add [[Image:FILENAME.EXT]] to the article (where FILENAME.EXT is the image's filename) where you want the image to go. Please be careful about uploading copyrighted images, though, unless they are fair use.
Once these concerns are addressed, I believe American Mutoscope and Biograph Company will be close to Good Article standards. When you have addressed these issues, before nominating the article, please review the Good Article criteria and send the article for peer review. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Laura Spence Affair

This is an article about the political row known as the "Laura Spence Affair" that broke out in the UK in 2000 over alleged elitism in Oxford University admissions

Is this article NPOV enough and is it OK that I have only so far used sources from BBC News?If not, what should I add in? Smeddlesboy 12:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Smeddlesboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.
I did not spot any obvious POV problems in the article. However, there may be some subtle POV problems that escaped my eyes. For example, in the first paragraph of the "After the Row" section, please be careful with weasel words such as "arguably". You may wish to read the NPOV tutorial for advice on writing in an NPOV manner.
As the BBC is a reliable source, I see nothing wrong with entirely relying on it for sources. Of course, using a wide range of sources is good, as long as they are reliable. In addition, I suggest you format your references using the <ref>...</ref> method. Wikipedia offers a guide on formatting references, but in a nutshell: enclose all the reference URLs in <ref>...</ref> tags, and create a References section, plaving only a single tag - <references/> - in the section.
I hope this answers your questions, and you have found my feedback useful. If you have more questions or need further feedback or clarifications, please feel free to post your request here. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Bloody Sunday (song)

This article presents information about U2's 1983 protest song and single.It achieved good article status in June.Since then quite a bit has changed (diff), and while it might be ready for a peer review, I'd like to test the waters here first.Some questions I have for general editors who might not be self-proclaimed U2 experts (as most of the editors of the article to this point have been):

  • The lead section.I've read over Wikipedia's advice on what an appropriate one looks like, and done my best to adapt the intro, but it still needs some work.
  • Images.Are enough used?Are they appropriate?Do they all qualify as fair use?
  • References.There are quite a few, but I'm certain more are needed.Where?
  • General layout and prose.I've compared the layout to other featured articles on individual singles, and I think they're fairly close.Is the information interesting and compelling?What still needs to be addressed?What parts of the article shouldn't be there?

Basically, I think it's pretty good, but it's been combed only by a group of U2 fans.I'm looking for the opinions of outside Wikipedians, I suppose.Thanks! McMillin24 contribstalk 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, McMillin24! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Since this article has achieved Good Article status, I think you should go ahead and send the article for peer review. RFF is generally for new or underdeveloped articles, which are likely to have glaring issues that need to be fixed, such as stylistic problems or lack of references. It also aims to offer guidance to new contributors, regarding their strengths and weaknesses as an editor. An article that has achieved Good Article status is unlikely to benefit from the feedback we tend to give at RFF. However, you are welcome to request feedback on other articles which you are trying to fix glaring issues or improve to Good Article status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents and related pages

This is a request for feedback on Wikipedia:Contents and related pages, most of which should be listed at Category:WikiProject Reference pages. The purpose of this "project" is to develop a set of comprehensive yet highly usable "Wikipedia Contents" pages suitable for the Main Page and sidebar. Please give feedback related to topics such as content, usability, and presentation. Think about what should be added, deleted or rearranged on the main page, supporting pages, and the header and footer navigation templates.Also, more contributing editors are very welcome to dig in and help spruce things up. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 01:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Rfrisbie! Unfortunately, your request is beyond the scope of RFF. RFF is for requesting feedback to encyclopedia articles you have created, or edits you have made to articles. We cannot give feedback on talk pages, or pages in the Wikipedia namespace. I am not aware of any process for getting feedback on non-article pages; perhaps you may wish to create such a process. I am considering creating such a process, as we have recently been receiving several feedback requests regarding non-articles. In the meantime, you may wish to ask at the village pump. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Any Wikipedians who are interested in Wikipedia:Contents are more than welcome to go there and throw in their two-cents-worth.No project is needed to do that!

Rfrisbietalk 15:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear J.L.W.S.,
Even though some of these pages are in the Wikipedia namespace (the rest are in article space, except for the one which is in portal space), they all pertain directly to the content of the encyclopedia.The pages in this set which are in the Wikipedia namespace are there only because they include self-references, but they are in fact part of the encyclopedia proper.(All encyclopedias have tables of contents and indices.Well, that's what these are!) --The Transhumanist 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody!We could sure use your comments on Wikipedia's various contents pages.There's a lot to be done, and it would take the 3 of us who have been working on this section of Wikipedia years to complete it by our lonesomes.Plus we don't even know if anyone really likes what we are creating.So come by Wikipedia:Contents and take a look!!!!!Thanks. --The Transhumanist 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's tables of contents

Note: since the following pages pertain directly to the content of the encyclopedia, there is no better place than this venue for requesting feedback.Thank you.--The Transhumanist 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this navigation bar...


Contents · Overviews · Topics · Basic topics · Glossaries · Portals · Categories · A–Z Index


All of the pages on that bar need your feedback.There's just 3 of us doing almost all of the work, and we could sure use some help.HEEEEEEEELP!!!!!!!!

First of all, do you like the bar?

Is there anything essential missing from the bar?

If so, what needs to be added?

Are there too many links on the bar?

If so, what should be removed?

How did you learn about the bar?

Do you make much use of the bar?

Do you like the colors selected for each of the pages listed on the bar?

Do you like the color distribution amongst the pages on the bar?

Would you rather they all be in greyscale?
Would you rather they all be the same color (as each other)?
Would you rather they all be different colors (than each other)?
Do you like the pages colored just the way they are?

Do you like the icons on those pages?

Keep them?
Get rid of them?
Find better ones?
Except for...?

Do you like the coverage of each page?

Are there enough links provided?
Are there too many links?
Are there gaps in coverage?What did we miss?

What else do you love about any of those pages?

What else do you hate about any of those pages?

Which of those pages do you make the most use of?

Which of those pages do you never use at all?


Contents · Overviews · Topics · Basic topics · Glossaries · Portals · Categories · A–Z Index


Is there anything we've overlooked?

Religion in Indonesia

Two weeks ago, this article was an Indonesian collaboration article, but it had not improved significantly. So since last week, I have tried to expand the article, of course with some other editors. I'd like people to comment on the flow and the content, as well as the quality of English used. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very good article already, I was going to suggest more about some of the religions (mainly Islam because it's the largest) but then I realised there was a whole separate article. The only advice I can offer is to improve them (Islam in Indonesia, Catholicism in Indonesia, Buddhism in Indonesia). Ha, you ask for advice on this article and I tell you to go fix something else, sorry about that but the main one you have edited is already very good. Perhaps someone else can advise better. When I read it for quality of English and flow it seemed fine, I changed the grammar in a few phrases slightly but it is a fine article. James086 Talk | Contribs 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

masonic architects

I am requesting reviews and further information for the articlemasonic architects with external limks a priority. thanks signed by bamboo dragon 17/10/2006

Hello, bamboodragon! You can sign your posts by typing two dashes and four tildes, like this: --~~~~.
I'm glad to see the article has a "See also" section, and a list of books which were used as references. However, you may wish to add several external links to websites where readers can find information about Masonic architects that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.
All the information in this article is lumped into one big paragraph. Please divide this huge paragraph into sections and smaller paragraphs for better structure and organization. In addition, the article desperately needs a copyedit; it is replete with grammatical and punctuation errors.
In fact, I am not sure whether this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Please read what Wikipedia is not. Your article may be nominated for deletion if it is deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia.
However, please don't get discouraged. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and make better contributions. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about references

Hi. I am working on Swedish literature, trying to bring it to featured status. I still have a lot of work to do about contents, language, and the lead section, but I'd like to ask Wikipedia's experienced contributors about references.

I am worried about the inline references being to plenty and distorting the view of the article as a whole. Is this an issue, and if so, what can I do about it? Last time I was trying to write an FA i was told I should use inline references. But now when I compare Swedish literature to other FAs I see that they don't use inline references to nearly the extent I am. Can someone clarify this to me?

Fred-Chess 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fred, how are you? I have to admit that although there is a clear standard for FA articles, the nomination of an article goes back to each individual reviewer. Plenty references is not a bad thing, and I reckon, the more references you have, the better the article is, because it will satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and many other WPs :P. I just want to give one suggestion, that you might want to consider using WP:CITET although it seems too late to change the whole citations. But I and the other editors made it, we have changed the whole citations using WP:CITET. Also, if you feel a certain article should denominated from it's FA status, you can put the article at WP:FAR. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 13:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think that the more references the better, the ref numbers (superscript links to the end of the page) are small and provided they don't interrupt sentences I think they are fine (they should always go at the end of a sentence). If there are lots of references then it shows that the article is well sourced, some articles have TONS of references at the bottom, so many that it almost constitutes its own page! The article already looks pretty good I think, but if you feel you want to add more that's great. Bear in mind that you said you came here to ask experienced editors, I have only been here since June so I'm not really experienced, but I hope it helped anyway. James086 Talk | Contribs 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both. / Fred-Chess 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Add-on domain article - may be innaccurate

Hi, I recently created an article on Add-on domains - I wanted to check my understanding of them was accurate. Thanks, Thomas Ash 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad Holland

Please editors post your comments on this article. IMO, it is a well writen article, with good references and is written in NPOV. If you can do anything to bump this to GA status, please inform me. Showmanship is the key 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Showmanship is the key, how are you? It is a well written article, but I hardly can see any direct citation (with the correct formatting). Although references section is highly important, you also have to provide inline citations, and of course the reviewer at WP:GA will ask for it. You also need to format the references using an appropriate formatting, maybe you will find it easy after you read WP:CITE. The lead section mentioned that he was a basketball player, but the information throughout the article is mostly about coaching career, maybe you should mention about coaching in the lead section as well. You might want to read lead section guideline. Last, but not least, is the presence of pictures, which is also very very important, and demanding at the same time. However you have to be careful to upload the image with permission. Maybe that is all from me. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

James Robert Baker

This article on James Robert Baker is the first I have written on Wiki, and I know it can be improved. I just don't know how to do it. Firstly, I haven't posted any sources, though I do have them. I just don't know how. Also, I cannot think of any more articles that can link to the one I wrote.

Any assistance would be appreciated.Jeffpw 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jeffpw, welcome to Wikipedia! First of all, let me give you some pages to look at.
There are actually millions other pages, but those will do :D. So, about the article, it is good that you have got enough information, which you will need to make the article fatter. By the way, have you tried Wikipedia:Notability (people)? This person must suit the policy, if not, I am afraid that it will be deleted. Another thing to remember, and very important, is citation. I see you've got them but you can't put them in. Please read Cite sources and footnotes for inline citations. Since I joined Wikipedia, I found that inline citations are highly important, maybe more important than anything, because you will satisty no original research and verifiability. Last but not least, is images, or pictures, as I really want to see this person's face! :P. Okay, maybe that is all for now, if you want, please put the article back here again after you improve it. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page, or go to the help desk. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 21:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now added footnotes to everything that I felt needed a source attribute. The page is now also linked from 9 other wiki pages and has a picture of the subject. Could somebody please read the article, and let me know if I need to source any other information, and if it needs to be lengthened?Jeffpw 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the new Christian Potenza article a couple of days ago

Hello

I created the new Christian Potenza article a few days ago. I'm sure you have seen Potenza on television before, probably in a commercial.

Please edit this article however you can, expand on it if you can, and encourage others to expand on it. Potenza is, in my eyes, a very good actor and deserving of a strong Wikipedia entry. Please do as you see fit.

-Kowalchuk

Hi, Kowalchuk, welcome to Wikipedia. Firstly why not make an account? It makes signing your name easy, you simply write four tidles (~~~~) and it allows you to actually start new articles. These are the main points of improvement that this article could use:
  • This article could use a picture, especially if it is about someone frequently seen in television commercials. Remember though that the picture must be free and not under copyright for it's use on Wikipedia. See WP:Images for more info.
  • The article is very brief, it should have more about him, his family, his history (see Wikipedia: Biographies).
  • Another thing is that it has no sources. The external links section is for websites that will be useful (usually only official websites, not fan sites). You can find out how to do this at WP:CITE and the preferred method is using the citation template available here: (WP:CITET). This gives nice organised citations that don't take up much room and make it clear what each citation is related to (with a summary at the bottom of the page).

If you want an example of an excellent article (the best of Wikipedia see a Featured Article, there is new one on the main page each day. These will have the citation template, be well structured and have loads of pictures. It may seem daunting but you don't have to add a lot each time you edit an article. I edited the article a bit, adding some info, references and the references section. James086 Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review! 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Gimli animal shelter

If there is anyone out there who can expand on the Gimli animal shelter article, please do so... as well as editing it please. Even regular animal shelter policies or information from the Gimli Animal Shelter site would be appreciated. I would just like to see a larger article here. Finally, please link other articles to this one. I do not think there is enough of this.

-Thank you

GAS official site

Hello. Please post at Requests for expansion if you want someone else to contribute to the article. RFF is for seeking feedback on your own contributions to an article. I encourage you to be bold and sign up for a Wikipedia account, and contribute to the article, after which you may request feedback on your contributions here. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Middlewich

I would be interest in how this article could be improved, with the final intent being to put it forward as a possible good article. Salinae 11:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cúcuta

I wrote an article about Cúcuta, a colombian city and I need your feedback. I think my english is not good and the article needs a clean up..

Thanks!

Ricardoramirezj ✍ 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ricardoramirez, how are you? Sorry for the late reply! Btw, welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjoy it. So, about the article, it is looking good already, with good amout of information and images. You also have backed up some statements with references, which is great. I also like the gallery section, good on you who have gathered the images. Here are some possible improvements.
  • I noticed some sections do not have much information, such as the History section. You might want to get rid of the subheadings and merge the information under a heading.
  • When you put inline citations, please consider using citation templates, so the formatting looks better. Also, try to read WP:FOOT (sorry if you have). It says that you need to put citations after punctuations.
  • Under the demographics section, probably you need to put more words, not just images. If you have had some more "written" information, you might want to resize the image to become smaller.
Maybe that is all for now, but you can tell me when it is ready for another review. Or you can put it on peer review. But I am sorry, I cannot help you with the English, as mine is not better than yours. In case of that, I will ask someone to review the English for you, alright? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers -- Imoeng 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Design_Patterns

I have added substantially to this article based on my notes from a recent teaching stint at Upenn.In particular, I reworded the opening and added a summary of Chapter 1, which contains an intricate discussion about object-oriented design that has had a lot of influence over time, but which few people have actually taken the time to read in detail.

I also tried to embed appropriate links to related pages.

I feel this was worth doing since a lot of other pages link back to this one, which indicates how well-known the book has become.

I did quite knowingly make one "judgemental" statement which seems to be true based on my experience, which is that people find the book somewhat difficult reading and hence many more recent books covering almost exactly the same information have found a thriving market (I didn't say it exactly like this).I hope that is OK in this case since it does impart information that helps put the book into perspective.

It seemed to me that the person who originally posted this article had not actually read the book (all too common, I'm afraid, in people who like to talk about design patterns).

Anyway, I'm a relatively new contributor and I'm trying to find my sea legs so I thought I had better ask for feedback before doing a lot of this kind of thing.Harborsparrow 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

An image of the cover (under fair use guidelines) would be nice. Twinxor t 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion.I just did that.Harborsparrow 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Camus' The Fall

I've recently made some rather extensive edits to this former stub article. More specifically, I've rephrased some of the introductory material, added the novel infobox, written a brief section on the setting and its thematic importance, and included a complete synopsis of the novel.

With regard to feedback, I'm concerned that the synopsis may be too lengthy and/or detailed; however all of the details I've included would seem to be useful for any "Philosophy" or "Themes" section -- which clearly will be necessary -- so I don't see where material can be cut or even if it should be. Finally, while I've been hanging around Wikipedia for a while, until now I've only made more-or-less minor changes or additions to articles; certainly nothing on this scale. So, some feedback on the general writing and tone of the article would therefore be much appreciated. Thanks! --Todeswalzer | Talk 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Smith Taylor

I've written this article from scratch as footnote to a larger article. Any feedback on needed improvements most welcome. --meatclerk 06:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things:-
Also, as another option, consider also reading this and especially this. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nurit Peled-Elhanan

As I am somewhat unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia, I would appreciate some feedback about any aspect of this article. Tidaress 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tidaress. I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. After briefly reading through the article, here's the feedback I have to offer:
You have done a good job finding and formatting references for this article. In addition, you have found a photo of her. Well done! (You may wish to add a caption for the photo, though.)
However, the article focuses too much on Elhanan's opinions. According to the good article criteria, articles should offer broad coverage of their subject. The information in the sections "On Israel", "On the USA and Great Britain" and "Quotes" should become subsections of a new "Opinions" section.
If you have sufficient information and references, try writing sections on:
  • Elhanan's history. Where did she grow up? What type of education did she receive? What significant events were there in her life? (Name this section "Biography".)
  • Elhanan's personal life. What does she do in her spare time? What is her family like? (Name this section "Personal life".)
  • Criticism of Elhanan. How did others react to Elhanan? What did they say about her? (Name this section "Criticism".)
As Elhanan appears to be controversial, when contributing to her article, please bear in mind that Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. The NPOV tutorial offers some advice on ensuring NPOV in articles. In addition, the article should establish how Elhanan is notable, or the article may be nominated for deletion.
Hope this helps. Please use my feedback to improve this article and your skills as a Wikipedian. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I will add information to the article as it becomes available to me. Tidaress 08:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Double Bind

Hi, I recently made some major changes to the double bind article and would like some feedback as to their quality.Thanks! Itistoday 03:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pipil grammar and Miskito grammar

I have just posted a new article on Miskito grammar. This is my second effort to write an article of this same general type: four weeks ago I also posted Pipil grammar. As a linguist specialising in grammatical descriptions and minority/endangered languages, I would like to continue to contribute such grammar sketches of other little-known languages to Wikipedia. It follows from this that in some sense the Pipil and Miskito grammars represent prototypes for articles of this kind. Because of their potential value as prototypes, I am particularly interested in "getting it right" with them, producing good articles to serve as future models.

There already exist several grammar sketches of languages in Wikipedia, and indeed a category Grammars of specific languages to which these belong. There is no single model followed by all of these, and as would be expected, they vary quite widely in structure and quality. I am aware of general issues about quality of language descriptions and the particular range of problems posed by descriptions of specific languages, and have made it a point to work towards and exemplify a "good" and "robust" model in my grammar sketches that might be worthy of emulation and as a guide to authors of future (or editors of existing) descriptions.

I will close my request for feedback with a few disclaimers and pleas.

First, I am new to Wikipedia (I started a couple of months ago), and may be guilty of a novice's errors. Secondly, the nature of the articles in question may justify some readjustment of usual criteria.

For example: both these articles are scratching the upper limit recommended for article length. I do realise that. I have also made strenuous efforts to reduce article length to the minimum compatible with the needs of articles of their kind and purpose. In my own judgment, the resulting length is right for the kind of subject. It would also in my opinion not be a good idea to try breaking up these articles in order to achieve shorter ones because they do each form a coherent whole. On the other hand, I also believe the articles to be short and synthetic enough to be regarded as bonafide encyclopedia articles, and as such I have written them. They are grammar sketches, not grammars in the habitual sense (which are normally expected to be of book length and much more specific and detailed), yet they do attempt, within these self-imposed limits, to provide the non-specialist reader with an accessible and balanced overview of the structure of a specific language. (See also next point...)

Those are some of my quandaries as a new Wikipedian trying to understand and comply with policy regulations. The two grammar articles cited above represent practical attempts to work through or around these and "get it right". Could I have some feedback to let me know if you think I have done so? --A R King 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources and references

(Re the Miskito grammar article) I am slightly concerned about some aspects of the use of references and the correct interpretation of Wikipedia policies; this may be because I am a novice. On the one hand, all sources are to be acknowledged. That is not generally a problem, except in particular situations such as I have encountered in the Miskito case, where I obtained material by saving a copy of a website from the internet, only to find at a later time that the material is no longer on the internet, leaving me with no obvious way of referencing it any longer. Suggestions? On the other hand, original research is not to be presented. Does this literally mean that I should not cite my own published work? How about my own unpublished work? Assuming I manage not to do that, so that I only cite other people's work, it is not always easy in the case of content such as this to see how to make use of others' work without "copying" any of their content. In the case of descriptive information, presumably this is okay provided the information is "reworked" in one's article (which it normally will be). But too much reworking might be seen as original work, so there is another pitfall to avoid! But a good grammatical description absolutely must make use of examples, and here there seem to be only two options: borrow examples from other work (linguists do this all the time), or make up new (original) examples (for many languages this requires more knowledge than your average Wikipedian is likely to possess, unless (s)he is a specialist in the field, potentially "guilty" of original research...). Incidentally, in the case of Pipil I am a specialist on the language in question, while in the case of Miskito I am not and have drawn more heavily on the available sources (including the disappearing websites mentioned above). --A R King 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm young to Wikipedia too, but I've been teaching quite a while, and I feel that web pages alone are seldom adequate as a reference for the reason you gave (they may disappear).Links to web pages should, in my opinion, only be used if they reflect material that is also written somewhere, or material that is likely to be stable because it is on the official website of a stable organization.Even news organizations sometimes cycle their articles out so they become unavailable after a relatively short time.Harborsparrow 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's more complicated than that. The materials in question (two items, actually) are of such a nature as to obviously represent either published (probably) or perfectly publishable items of literature. They are manifestly products of serious scholarship, whose contents seem as reliable as a published work would be (which they probably are anyway). At one time they were on the internet, presumably intended for access by the public, and it was then legitimate to cite them as web sources. They are now off the internet, as far as I can tell, but that doesn't mean they are no longer good sources, and surely it doesn't mean they can no longer be quoted; what it does mean is that, unless when they were on-line I had also found, copied and still have a non-internet reference provided for these items, or else I can dig one up now (probably available somewhere in a library I personally cannot currently access), I don't know how to formally identify the source. If the upshot of all this is that web sources cannot be used as part of academic research or referred to in serious writing (including Wikipedia!), then the whole "internet revolution" would seem to have shot itself in the foot. I can't believe that's the answer. What is then? In the case of the Miskito article, the two materials in question provide most of my source information (since I don't have access to an academic library where I am). --A R King 15:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alan, some comments/responses re your concerns, above.
Firstly, the No Original Research policy is (by my reading) intended more to dissuade the general wikipedia contributor from inserting their own uncorroborated opinions, speculations, pet theories etc, particularly where there is no independent way or basis for verifying either notability or reliability. This is sensible enough. However, in the case (such as yours) where a contributor has notably-published work in some field or other, then that's a different matter, and it should generally be ok to cite such works. It's probably better that your work is not the sole or main source of information for the article, and that at least other notable references are provided which could be used to assess the relative merits and standing.
Also, the higher the "grade" of the work's verifiability the better (eg peer-reviewed vs. self-published), since any statement or associated source may be open to challenge on the basis of WP:RS, WP:V or WP:CITE regardless of whether it comes from a contributor or third-party source. This is generally only a problem if the information can be seen as contentious, implausible, or unduly opinionated. I don't think that's the case here.
Re the use of any unpublished MS. of yours, or your own set of illustrative linguistic examples- generally this should be ok too if there is no alternative, with the proviso that you can (as you have done) establish your credentials in the field and provide accompanying reference works from others to back these up.
For other materials unpublished or no longer readily available, again it should be ok to use these where there is no alternative, or in addition to more readily-accessible sources. As long as these are clearly marked as such so the reader may decide for themselves how reliable or otherwise the source may be, then some citation is better than none at all, which is all too-frequently seen. In any event, if some other editor has a problem with the added info they'll raise the issue, and it can be worked out. Just my interpretation, others may have differing takes on it. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling that out. This advice will also be useful for future work! --A R King 06:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ye Antientist Burial Ground, New London

Newly created article on local landmark with regional historic importance.

  • Is tone "encyclopedic" enough?
  • Are references and citations sufficient and appropriate?
  • Is photo properly cited and tagged?
  • Other(?)

I am a local history buff and this is my first Wikipedia article. This is a "pilot" and I intend to do more in this vein. What I learn here I shall use in my subsequent writing.

Thanks. --RalphThayer 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice article, your knowledge of this remote place is impressive.Please don't consider my suggestions anywhere even close to comprehensive, but from just skimming over it
  • Some of the sentences are very long, run-on sentences that are difficult to follow
  • Most wiki articles don't put a horizontal rule to separate the table of contents, to keep with uniformity and style I'd remove it
  • Parts of it read like a mystery novel and not an encyclopedia entry, for example, I'd remove the word stark from here: "In this stark and isolated corner of early colonial Connecticut"
  • Just before the table of contents there seems to be a broken quote
  • Don't forget that the Notes section can be used as a place for references as well
  • The See Also section should point to internal wikis, so since all of those links point to other websites you should rename it "External Links"
Otherwise, good job, your knowledge is impressive, the amount of citations is fine, and the page looks good, but remember, one of the best ways to learn how write good articles is to look at the featured articles. -- itistoday (Talk) 08:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Apachean ca.18-century.png

this is an invitation to comment on the map. – ishwar  (speak) 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to add a key to the bottom-left corner of the map. This means it can be understood even without the image page. Otherwise, nice! Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 07:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epic of Evolution

I posted the original article yesterday. (This was my first posting, and it was a very enjoyable experience.)

Today I saw a NPOV notice on it with some changes. I was amazed at the quick response.

Later today, I updated this article (stub) with additional content.Have I addressed the NPOV issue?

Any other suggestions?

Thank you in advance for help.

Best Wishes,

Cathy Momosean 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV issues may stem from the article treating evolution as a fact and that people who don't agree with evolution are misunderstanding it. While I am completely in agreement with this, and am quite the strict anti-creationist, we have to stay NPOV. Some more information on what is meant by the "Epic of Evolution" (I believe you mean the concept of the universe as a perpetual "story" by "epic", as in a literary "epic", this might be misunderstood, make sure to let readers know this in some way!). As I'm not really a policy guy I can't comment further, but that's what I've seen so far. Best of luck. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I am fully aware that this is not the proper place to debate the issue, so I'll keep my comments brief and to the point. I'm not entirely sure what Wooty's position is above, whether evolution should be treated from a "neutral" point of view or stated as a fact; but regardless of that, I can't see stating evolution as a fact as being an NPOV issue for the very reason that evolution is a proven scientific fact: to state it as such is no more POV than saying the sky is blue or that birds have wings. Making the point any other way would be irresponsible and unbecoming of an encyclopaedia.
But perhaps more to the point, having read the article I'm still unsure exactly what it's about -- what is the "Epic of Evolution"? Is it a book? A religious idea? Etc. etc. etc. This should be stated clearly and unequivocally in the lead section. --Todeswalzer|Talk 04:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese aborigines

Taiwanese aborigines.Compare to the [pre-edit version]. --Ling.Nut 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm looking for another round of input from outside eyes before I make an attempt to go for GA. Color me nervous. --Ling.Nut 11:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Skip it. Thanks. --Ling.Nut 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Carroll diagram

I've written this article almost on my own and it's a bit short. Can anyone comment on it or make it a little longer?--CarrotMan 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You need to format the reference using a citation template - find the appropriate one somewhere here. Seegoon 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

which may, or may not, inspire you.Since my math skills start at (minus) it is all I can contribute.Good luck. MissionCreek

Sonija Kwok

Biography of a Hong Kong actress. I would also like to request for a rating of this biography. Thanks.--Tdxiang 10:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rated this a start-class biography. It has no references, which it needs to fufill Wikipedia's policy on verifying content. Other than that, there is no reason to bold the awards she recieves in the #Pageant Career section - bolding, as stated in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, is for the subject's name and any other alternate names for the subject. The prose also needs some work - saying "Note: [text]" is not preferable, and it should somehow be avoided (eg. "It should be noted that..."). The same can be said for the phrase "Anyway, after her winning...", which is unencyclopedia in its' tone of voice.
Another glaring problem is the image - the license currently under is not permitted withing Wikipedia's policy on images, as stated in WP:FU. Please provide evidence that this is from a promotional photo kit, or else it will be deleted. Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Methyl tert-butyl ether

The clean up cost estimates are incorrect.Under "Legislation and Litigation", a figure of 1 to 30 billion in clean up costs is cited.The $30 billion value comes from a USGS report that indicates the amount (and value) of MTBE produced worth $30 billion.This is NOT the same as estimated clean up costs.

Hi. I think you're in the wrong place - this is for requests for feedback on articles. Because Wikipedia is, well, a wiki, you can be bold and edit/fix the article yourself. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My Opera Community

A couple weeks ago I created the My Opera Community article.Since then it has been sited as not listing its importance.I have been working on it but would like some advice as to how to best achieve it.I know that it could use more third party sources and editors.Any other advice would also be gladly appreciated. Kc4 04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Vilnius Castle Complex

Hello, before some time I crated Vilnius Castle Complex article and gradually expanded it, with help of other contributors improved spelling. AndI thinking about WP:GA now, but before this, it would be wise to receive some feedback about it, starting from layout ending with enunciation. Please share your thoughts. M.K. 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've had a read of your article, and it is very good. However, a couple of things struck me:
  • The Teutonic Knights burning sentence in the lead could do with a reference.
  • Ditto above with the "attacked several times" sentence directly below it.
  • A lot of the #History of the Upper Castle section requires references, which are a basic requirement for GA and FA status. Although there is a little bit of leeway with what needs to be referenced, dates and figures are things that really require references to ensure accuracy.
  • Similarily, the #The Castle Arsenals section requires some references for the dates towards the end of the first paragraph.
  • A "see also" section, if applicable, wouldn't hurt.
  • No real problems with the prose, however there seems to be places where there are no internal links, especially in the middle sections of #History of the Upper Castle. Knowing little of what is notable in Lithuania, I can't hazzard a guess as to whether any of the potential links I'm thinking of would be applicable, however another review of this area may be handy.
  • Nice image selection, however as you have occasionally had images on the left side of the page, those in the #The Royal Palace section may be better if there is one or two left-aligned.
Otherwise, very nice! A very interesting compilation, which I enjoyed reading. Best of luck, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 08:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I will try to fix these problems ASAP. Thanks again! M.K. 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No problems :) Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Elias Fund

Hello, I am hoping so see if I could get some feedback on the Elias Fund article.I have been building it up for a while with a few others and was hoping for some input and feedback!

Thanks for your help. --Thefirechild 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Thefirechild! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Let's have a look at the article:
Firstly, is the Elias Fund notable enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia? If so, the article should establish its notability, or the article may be nominated for deletion. Note that some parts of the article read like an advertisement. For example: "For more information on starting an Elias Club at your Highschool or College contact info@eliasfund.org" and "A tax deductible donation can be made by two means".
The article does not have any references. In order to satisfy Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, please try to find and include references from reliable sources. If you need help formatting references, you may wish to read Wikipedia's referencing guide.
You should add a lead section to the article, encompassing some information from the Overview section.
All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Millwall brick

Before submitting the article Millwall brick to peer review, I would like receive feedback.Thanks. -- Jreferee 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a nice article given the slightly weird topic :) A couple of things:
  • Any chance you could get a picture of a brick in a generic position for the infobox - it may be more descriptive.
  • The lead needs references - "...was allegedly used as a stealth weapon..." etc.
  • Dunno if it would be possible, but the #Design section needs references (otherwise it could be considered OR).
  • The #References in popular culture section could do with a beefing-up, to explain th subject more in-depth.
Otherwise, nice article! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.I'll begin to work on implementing your suggestions.--Jreferee 16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No problems :) Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Breakfast Club

Hi, I have made a major change on reorganizing the lists of the Cultural Impact. Some of them are compiled into paragraphs for the lead section, and the rest are too diversely specific for me to make them into prose. Any feedback will be great. Thanks, Vic226 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistead_Burwell_Smith_IV

Hey all, I'm a new ed but a pro journalist who uses Wikipedia every single day. I posted my first entry, and wanted a little feedback on it. I chose a subject I knew well, but one that was esoteric enough to have no previous description. As such, I cited two of my past interviews with the subject, Pinback and Three Mile Pilot bassist/vocalist Armistead Burwell Smith IV, in the References section, along with another insightful interview and his bands'official sites. I kept it short, but will be happy to expand on the piece if everyone feels that the references used are legitimate and non-vanity. I wanted to understand the nuances of using my own past research, which I cannot separate from my overall knowledge on the subject, for support. Of course, I plan on covering a variety of subjects for which I haven't interviewed anyone, but I figured I'd start with this thorny issue first to better understand how Wikiquette applies to it. I can't thank you enough for opensourcing this encyclopedia, and for bringing knowledge to the world for free. It's amazing.

I have done a copy edit for you. Correct anything if I have mistakenly changd the facts. Since the feature seems to be his playing style can you describe this further beyond "fret work"? Do the references relate to specific sentences? You could extend teh article with a discography --Just nigel 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

West Country Carnival

In the hope of starting the push towards featured article status, I request a review of the article West Country Carnival. I was the editor who started the article, but asking for a review for something which is "visual" up until this point was, quite frankly - pointless! I have now added various pictures to the article, and while waiting for the images have with other editors considerably improved the original text. All feedback gratefully received! Rgds, - Trident13 22:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are great. It was good to read about this. Well done.
There are a couple of grammar errors in your first sentance. "The West Country Carnivals are a parade celebration with floats (termed "carts" locally), based in the English West Country; that goes back 400 years to the Gun Powder Plot of 1605." Try "The West Country Carnival is an annual celebration featuring a parade of illuminated floats (called "carts"), in the English West Country. The celebration dates back to the Gun Powder Plot of 1605." --Just nigel 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanx! I have made the suggested changes Rgds, - Trident13 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choy_Lee_Fut

The Masters of Choy Lee Fut section needs a little cleaning up to do.

  • You'll get better help at WP:CU for clean-up requests. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MIT

I have added or revised substantial parts (History, Research & Faculty, Alumni) of the MIT article over the past several weeks. There are currently legitimate concerns about academic boosterism & length of the article (~70kb). I don't want a formal peer review (yet), just some new sets of eyes to read it over. Suggestions welcome on topics to be cut, expanded, merged, reformed. Madcoverboy 07:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Madcoverboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here's my feedback after speed-reading the article twice:
Your concerns about academic boosterism are valid. For example, the "Notable alumni" section, with over a hundred people in the list, is completely overkill. There is also a long list in the "Faculty and research" section. Try trimming these lists down - that should do the trick. For general advice, you may wish to read Avoid academic boosterism and the NPOV tutorial.
In the three sections "Culture and student life", "Faculty and research" and "Academics", I noted some overlapping information and fancruft. The "Campus" section appears to be too long. In addition, I spotted excessive external links in several sections, particularly "Organization".
Overall, MIT appears to be an excellent, well-referenced article, and after some trimming of fancruft and lists, do consider nominating it for Good Article status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

•Agreement with several other comments posted here, there is editing that needs to be done to eliminate overlaps and remove language that may be more appropriate to an institution recruiting brochure or Annual Report. Academic boosterism is very apparent, and a little disorganized. There are so many external links that it is confusing because some do not seem related to the core subject "all about MIT".This makes it difficult to track through history and relate it to major (departments) (schools) within the institution.I am sure it was difficult to get all the parties to contribute and to collate the information in the first place.I think a laser editing job would be in order, and then add back when the screaming begins. But, all in all, an overly informative piece. MissionCreek 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One (word)

Should this be an article at all? Is it Wikipedia policy to have articles on words themselves (the only thing new here is a paragraph on the history of the word's pronunciation)? Fagstein 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed, this is not a Wikipedia topic. Possibly as an art or language form, attached to some other article. MissionCreek 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pandanus spiralis and Pandanus utilis

I recently started these two articles about tropical trees to compliment Red Fruit. They're referenced as well as I could make them, but it's surprising how short of an article a half hour's research can produce. Does anyone have suggestions on how to expand, or otherwise improve, them? (Unfortunately,) they're the most extensive articles I've started (though I have done a longer rewrite or two) without outside intervention. --Gray Porpoise 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing that you could do would be to do the references using the {{cite}} family of templates. That improves the article by giving the reader a list of the references. I've done the first two in Pandanus spiralis for you (on the theory that you'd like to be doing this yourself!). Waitak 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gray Porpoise 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That task has been completed. Are there any other ways that these can be improved (e.g. any type of information that needs to be added)? --Gray Porpoise 16:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

HHNO and HHNH

I have been working on splitting Halloween Horror Nights into the two component articles listed above. From my talk page, you can access the subpages I used to help during the split. I would just like general feedback on how it went and any suggestions on improving the articles themselves.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

8 Foot Sativa

Over the last couple of months, I have been working on updating the 8 Foot Sativa entry. It has developed majorly, from what it was (really was just a stub). Just reading through the text I have written it doesn't seem to flow as well as I like, so just want some peoples view on that, and any suggestions of changes to make the article better.

Thank you JohnstonDJ 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Forgot to sign. JohnstonDJ 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to requests for feedback. Nice looking article!
  • One problem I can see is a lack of references - for example, in Sections 1.2 to 1.5 inclusive, there's no references (I see you've done it for the other sections I didn't mention, which is a good start). See WP:RS for any further information you need on this.
  • It would also be good if you could find/get permission for a free image for this article. Currently, every picture is a fair use image, which is something Wikipedia wants to avoid. Further information on this can be found at WP:IMAGES.
  • Another thing that would be good would be a "See Also" section, for pages closely related to the band. Also, the Wikipedia Manual of Style is always a good read - I noticed you bolded the album in the first paragraph (also known as the lead)), a thing which is discouraged by the Manual of Style.
  • Finally, I also noticed that a lot of albums aren't in italics. Generally they are placed in italics, per the Manual of Style. This is a pretty easy fix, though :)
Cheers, and good luck, Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

AdventureQuest

Since 1 September 2006, I did an extensive and complete rewrite of this article.

Compare:

I would appreciate any constructive feedback you have to offer, and suggestions for improving the article.

I hope to improve this article to at least "Unreferenced GA" standard. Note that despite the game's notability being established in an AFD, a quick Google search yielded no reliable third-party references. If you have any suggestions for finding such references, I would like to hear/read them.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (creator of RFF)

I found [6] and [7]. I am not sure how good these are, but most of the things I get for AQ are travel or cheat sites. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey :) A few things I noticed, in no particular order of importance etc.
  • There seems to be a lack of internal links throughout many sections of the article.
  • A "See also" section with similar games may be good.
  • There's one or two occasions where "AdventureQuest" isn't in italics.
  • The "Criticism" section especially needs references, preferably in-line citations.
  • Double-check all the links are going to the right spot, as opposed to disambiguation pages - I seem to recall when I wrote a CVG article that a number of generic terms went to pages that were not what I wanted.
  • Is there a portal related (CVG, Computers etc.)? If so, {{Portal}} (see instructions by clicking the link) can be added to the "See also" section.
  • Ensure that the prose reads well and is interesting, and avoid saying stuff like "It should be noted..." etc. - see WP:GTWBA.
On the whole, a very nice article :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T Â· C ] 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stillwater Area High School Feedback Request

Stillwater Area High School

I'd like to get some feed back on this page...If you could post comments/suggestions/problems etc. on the talk page that'd be much appreciated. Mientkiewicz5508 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Web_document (article) Feedback Request

The Web_document article was contested about original research. All other possible problems on Talk:Web_document. -- Krauss 22:09, 23 November 2006

Mary-Claire King

I developed the article on Mary-Claire King.I'd like some feedback rating the biography and general commentary. --LQ 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Brightman

I've been working on this for quite some time now but I don't think it's quite ready for peer review. Anything you can offer in the way of help would be great. My main concerns include:

  • Sources. I'm having a bit of trouble finding external sources (i.e. not official.) I know they're out there. They have to be. Lately since she released her album she's done a lot of radio appearances. Looking for transcripts with mixed results.
  • Photos. Currently we've got one photograph, a fair-use screenshot from a concert recording. Doesn't quite cut it. I've been trying to find photos but to no avail.
  • The article is still rather listy at the moment.

Thanks in advance to all who have suggestions. Crystallina 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

eletrical

How three phase system can change into two phase system by capacitors?

Galaxy

IMO this is a core topic in astronomy and the article is fairly well developed. I'd like to bring this up to GA, if not FA quality. Apart from the need for references, could you let me know what else needs to be added to make this article a comprehensive write-up on the topic? Are there any changes needed to the format or content? Thank you! — RJH (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(new section)

Hi, my name is Bill Kendall, and I am an accomplished portrait artist and aspiring writer at 52 the ripe old age of 52.I recently joined WikipediA as a contributing writer/editor, because I am very impressed with what you are doing with this site.This is a good example of emergence theory using positive feedback as well as negative feedback to create a more sentient site -- than most of the other sites you find on the web.I want to know if you will allow me to contribute an autobiography of an Artist/Writer: me.I would like to submit multiple drawings and paintings some times for illustration purposes; at other times I will contribute single ones with write-ups explaining techniques or brief histories.I would like to start an autobiography "One Artist's Sketch Pad" as an on going serial developmental fashion.Can this be done?I need to learn how to delete my duplicate ones (contributed artwork) and get all of them linked together as well as to other sites that are in your WikipediA network, that might be interested in seeing: the developmental stages of an Artist/Writer from the time I started at about 12 years old tell now.I would appreciate your attention to this matter and I look forward to working with you all.Please check out my artwork and make sure it meets your high standards, if not, please let me know.thanks, once again.Until next time...I await your kind replies,

bk

--FarroRavenKnight 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Public domain I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible,

I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
Bill, first of all, if you want your images to be global to all Wikipedias, and other sister projects on the Wikimedia network, I suggest you upload the images on the Commons, the shared media repository. Secondly, your work on Wikipedia has to be encyclopedic, and not autobiographical; Wikipedia is not a personal webhost, so you might want to start your own personal wiki, which is pretty easy nowadays. Cheers! --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 14:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English

Please help bringing the Al Jazeera English article up to featured status.

However, considering the US regime's long-running smear campaign against Al Jazeera, I have one earnest request:

Before editing the article, go and actually watch the channel. That should be a requirement for anyone editing the article. The link for free online watching is in the article, so most users shouldn't have a problem doing that. 139.30.24.34 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to improve an article to featured status, consider requesting a peer review instead. RFF is more appropriate for newer, less developed articles. However, Al Jazeera English does not appear to be anywhere near featured status, so consider aiming for Good Article status instead. You may wish to consult a relevant WikiProject, where you may find useful resources and other Wikipedians willing to help you improve the article. I hope you succeed in bringing Al Jazeera English to good or featured status. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A good Wikiproject to bring to attention on this article is Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, or a sub-project thereof. ~ crazytales-Stalk My Contribs!!!- 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Princess of the Stars

I would love it if I could get some feedback about this article. The Princess of the Stars is an opera by Raymond Murray Schafer. Thanks for your advise on what needs work! S.dedalus 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad start at all. A few suggestions:
  • First of all, it's always best to copyedit before submitting. There were some spelling/grammar issues that I caught in a quick once-over; possibly more I didn't see.
  • If possible, it would be improved by some critical sources; reviews, etc. Did any notable actors participate in the performances? If so, this could be mentioned.
  • The "See Also" section isn't needed; most of the links there are already wikilinked in the article's text.
If I think of anything else I'll add it. Crystallina 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm on it. S.dedalus 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Fox

The article on red foxes need a bit of layout work.A few of the pics posted are blocking text and creating unsightly blank spots.

Seems to have been fixed. —Seqsea (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I Not Stupid for GA

I don't wish to increase the backlog of my process, but I created it to use it, and I'm using it again.

Since 9 September, I did an extensive rewrite to this article, on my favourite movie. Several SGpedians and I agree that it is close to GA status, which I am aiming for.

Before nominating the article, I need to address two concerns:

  • The "Political satire" section. This section is unreferenced. Should it be removed? Is it needed to satisfy the "broad coverage" section of the GA criteria?
  • The "Production" section. The lack of coverage on Singaporean movies has made research very difficult. What information needs to be included in the Production section?

I would appreciate other feedback or suggestions for improving the article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Doodlebug

Can someone please reconsider including our article for doodleBug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doodlebug

Our original article was removed, but we feel if someone would actually take the time to look at what we have posted in talk regarding it's removal, it would be considered legit.

Thanks so much for your time and help.

(Please forgive me if I have posted here in error, and give a solid redirect if needed.)

RedSodaPop - Artist and Member of http://doodleBug.desktopcreatures.com

Please see this policy; your website does not meet the notability guidelines as set out in the aforementioned policy, and hence has been deleted. In plain words, your website is not noteworthy enough to have an article on Wikipedia. --May the Force be with you!Shreshth91 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thameslink Programme

Hi, I'd like some feedback for this article please. Here's my version and here's what it looked like before I made several major edits. Edvid 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The other works section can probably be be absorbed into the main prose.Other wise it looks good to me.Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions)(Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. By the way, what would the article need to reach GA status? Edvid 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

St Pancras Thameslink railway station

I would greatly appreciate some advice on how to improve this article, which I think is good enough for Start-Class requirements, although it hasn't been assessed yet. It was created in April 2006 but hasn't changed significantly since then. Edvid 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first thing I notice looking at the article is the future stuff.Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.What it is intended to serve or function as should perhaps be incorporated into the main prose, while more speculative future content should be avoided.That's one thing you can do to improve, anywho.Hope it helps!Cheers ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions)(Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. With respect to the crystal ball comment, would some additional referencing be enough? As far as I can see, most of the speculation is documented in some of the referenced links anyway - nevertheless I'll take your comment on board. Edvid 17:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Georgia General Assembly

I have been trying to re-do the Georgia General Assembly article. The original was a stub, basically a paragraph long. I was hoping for some feedback on the article and suggestions to make it better. I have to admit I was inspired a lot by the U.S. Congress article and adapted that format in the expansion of Georgia General Assembly. One problem I can already see is that the Capitol Building pic is rather small in the infobox, but I don't know how to make it larger on here.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Reb 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Furl

"Furl is a free social bookmarking website that allows members to store searchable copies of webpages and share them with others."
This article was a stub and I've attempted to expand it. This is my first Wikipedia contribution, so I'm very unsure of the quality of my content. It also still looks a little small, but I don't really know what else to add. Here is the diff between the previous version and my edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furl&diff=92021142&oldid=74564163

Arungoodboy 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Arungoodboy! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here are a few pointers; I hope you find them useful:
Are you sure that Furl is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? http://furl.net has an Alexa ranking of 2,247. If Furl is notable, the article should establish its notability. If Furl is not notable, or the article is suspected to be spam/advertising for Furl, it may be deleted.
The Furl article focuses too much on the features of the website. One of the good article criteria is "broad coverage" of the article's topic. To achieve broad coverage, I suggest you add sections about the history of Furl, and any notable reviews or criticisms of the site.
I noted that the article lacks references. To ensure verifiability, I suggest that you find and add some references to the article. Formatting references may look difficult, but you simply have to enclose the reference's URL in <ref>...</ref> tags, and add a "References" section, which should only consist of a <references/> tag.
Once these issues have been addressed, feel free to return and request more feedback. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Student Project: Articles Related to Downstream_processing at WP:SUP

Twelve articles on aspects of downstream processing are in preparation as part of a student project.The students, mostly seniors in Cornell's Biological Engineering program, are all first-time editors and reviewers, learning as they go - as am I, the instructor.The students and I would very much appreciate peer review, human or javascripted, on any of the articles listed here.

Already open for review:

Thank you! susato 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

National Civil Defence Cadet Corps

Request for feedback on content that could be added into or edited in article

Add in things like Activities the corps does, Uniform and Insignia, Membership. Does the corps offer any Courses members can addend. Any Competitions ? Brian | (Talk) 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

plato

who was plato in the story allegor of the cave?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Courtney 15 (talk • contribs).

This page is for requests for feedback on articles. You might try the Reference Desk, though note they won't do your homework for you. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Victor Hugo" painting letters v.h. help please!

VICTOR HUGO] how would i know who to contack, too show a picture of a painting, that may have been done by victor hugo? can anyone help me! I have a painting mid 1800s signed V.H.I CAN NOT SEE HIS AUTO-GRAPHS TO COMPARE? THIS PAINTING I HAVE; I WAS TOLD IT may have been done by VICTOR HUGO!? IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT MAY OR COULD HELP ME! MY EMAIL IS <redacted> i would like to send a few pictures, if you have a hard time contacking me my <redacted>, im from gray maine! thank you gary vickerson. <redacted> I TRIED TO SEARCH THROUGH THIS SITE BUT ITS A LITTLE TOO MUCH FOR ME TOO, FIND WHAT IM LOOKING FOR! SO IM ASKING FO RSOME HELP, ANY TYPE OF HELP!

  • Questions like this belong on the reference desk, but you'd be better off finding an art dealer near where you live. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've also removed your contact details to avoid you being spammed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hempfield High School

My concerns are posted in the discussion page of the article.

I don't see anything of interest on the talk page. However, when reading the article, I noticed that it suffers from academic boosterism. This means that it places too much emphasis on the school's achievements, and is thus biased. Wikipedia has a policy stating that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view - I suggest you read the NPOV tutorial for suggestions on how to achieve this. If the school's notability is contested, its article may be viewed as advertising, and may be deleted. It would be great if you could find and add some references to the article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Earl Mindell

Biased?

Huh? Are you asking us whether an article you wrote, Earl Mindell, conforms to Wikipedia's NPOV policy? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so (I don't think that's what s/he's asking). However, I redid the article (such as it is). It's no longer POV. I'll watchlist it and expand as I can. Anchoress 09:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamersley, Western Australia

Hi, I'm looking for someone to review the above article for me - it's almost entirely been contributed by myself. Problem is I'm too close to it to see the forest for the trees and would appreciate any feedback on how I can improve this article, hopefully towards Good Article status. I requested a peer review at WP Australia but received no response. Orderinchaos78 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a couple very minor grammar issues, but other than that I see very few problems with the article; it's quite well-written.I'm inclined to say that this is more suitable for Peer Review, simply because it is quite fleshed out and needs a bit closer inspection.
My only piece of advice is to improve the organization and flow.Sometimes, paragraphs jump around a bit, giving the impression that parts of it were written as an afterthought or that you didn't know where to put that piece of information.Leading on that point, the flow is interrupted by such sentences, so there isn't as much intuitive reading as there could be. Overall, very well done. —Keakealani 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ThinkGeek

Hi, a while ago I made an enormous article expansion on a popular e-commerce website called ThinkGeek, the page has since been edited but a large-scale edit was made to the article regardless. I managed to find a lot of information about the website which wasn't already available (the slogan, the year it was founded, a few t-shirts they sell, and so on). What I'd like to know is what could I have done to push this article into more of a good article status? My biggest concerns are perhaps perhaps the software and hardware sections, but I made do with the information that was there. Then there's the Products list, perhaps I can go into more detail into what was being sold? The Geek Points category I'm very proud of, but a majority of the text was copied and incorporated into the article, styled to the specifications of the encyclopaedia. What could I do next? Here's a link right here... oh wait... I mean HERE! =P Druss666uk 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article seems fairly sparse. I think I'd like to see more information referenced from third party reviewers. Do you have anything on their business model? Are they privately held, or do they have stock? Are they affiliated with any other businesses? Do they have a development group that comes up with their merchandise, or are they just a VAR? Who were the four founders? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Internal_query_string_links

I have been bold and created this article to document a template that I created to addresses a limitation of the current wiki software. I believe that the template is useful and well coded. What are the thoughts of experienced wikipedians? BBilge 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but RFF should only be used to seek feedback on articles in the main namespace. I don't know any place for seeking feedback on pages in the Wikipedia namespace, but you could try the village pump. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, though the enquiry was really about the suitability of the template that the article is about rather than the article itself. --Bilge [TC] 21:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii Youth Opera Chorus

I've been steadily cleaning this article up, but I am at a loss for how I can better inprove the article, although I know it has a long way to go.I'm having problems with some of the phrasing, so I would be very grateful if someone could make a suggestion.Thank you in advanced, and happy editing! —Keakealani 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article could use some external sources to indicate the notability of the choir. I'm not sure if there exists any specific notability requirements for choirs, but at present the article doesn't say much, other than this being a choir based at the University of Hawaii (which isn't really any indication of notability). Bjelleklang-talk 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall certainly do so.I'm sure I can find an article about the China tour, at least.

Ford BA Falcon

Hi, I have checked this article myself and others but it still lacks something. I need some comments on what could be fixed.Senators 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on cars, but I think it looks great! The only thing I could think of would have to be a quick overview of the sales, and some mention if the car is based on a previous model, or if a newer model is based on this one. Bjelleklang-talk 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sex tourism

Would need an experienced and trustworhy editor as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Workshop#interim state editor revision for duration of the arbitration, to write the article in a decent state during the ongoing arbitration. Most importantly to decide whether a link toSly Traveler is acceptable or not. / Fred-Chess 11:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Information Sharing and Customer Outreach

Is this NPOV enough? I've attempted to improve the quality of the article overall and would appreciate any feedback.Thanks in advance --Tom 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey State Constitution

I've tried using peer review twice. No one seems to be interested in commenting and suggesting corrections for this article. I've been trying to bring it to FA. All and any comments apprieciated. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you'll have to send it for a third peer review, and hope someone responds. Try posting at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject to get reviewers. RFF caters to newer, less-developed articles, and an article which has already achieved Good Article status is unlikely to benefit from the RFF process. There were several concerns raised in the failed Featured Article nomination - have you addressed them yet? All the best to you in your quest to improve New Jersey State Constitution to featured status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Overall it seemed fine to me. There were a few paragraphs that were overly long and could do with judicious splits to make the reading less taxing (so to speak). It can be difficult to get feedback on the 2nd and later PR reviews, especially on less than exciting topics (no offense intended); I don't really have any suggestions on that score. But if the failed FAC issues have been addressed and there was no PR feedback, I'd try for another FAC. They seem more motivated to find flaws in an article. — RJH (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If an article in PR is not getting reviewed at all, after a couple of week it might helpful to bump the PR template to the top of the stack. I.e. edit the PR page and move your entry back up to the top so that people who might be interested will notice it right away as they scan down the page. (Not that I would encourage this widely, of course, but it's helpful on occasion.) Also, tactically, it seems to help when the poster tries to sell the article a little in the description by saying something interesting about it (rather than just saying it's the 2nd or 3rd PR, for example.) — RJH (talk)
I think the writing quality could be improved. I've started to edit the prose, but it could take a while to finish. You'll get the idea from my first few edits, though. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Semen

The quality of this article, especially the illustrations, is hotly debated.Please comment on the talk page. Rockules318 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Silver State Classic Challenge

I've driven this open road rally in Nevada a couple of times. I've been working on this article for about two months, and I'd appreciate some guidance on what I should do next.In particular, I don't know if I've given too much detail on rules.NNH 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not experienced with the subject matter, but I'd not consider the ‘notable cars’ notable in the sense of Wikipedia. f(Crazytales) = (user + talk) at 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Money No Enough

I wrote an article on Money No Enough, Singapore's all-time highest-grossing movie. As of 27 December 2006, 11.30pm Singapore time, the article is one of six listed in the Did you know? section of the main page. Wisekwai gave the article a Start-Class rating. I would appreciate any feedback, or suggestions for improving the article to B-Class (and, if possible, GA status). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In terms of language and structure, looking at other movie pages like, say, The Matrix, might give you some ideas. A proper Principal Cast table would be nice... perhaps also a subtle edit of the Plot Summary. Its actually fairly well-written, except for the first paragraph which lists the main characters. I prefer the style of other movie pages, which Ive noticed tend to avoid "third person" words like "main characters" and simply delve directly into the plot, describing the characters as they are mentioned. Otherwise, nice article! Metao 09:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Janjua

As I stated on the Talk page for this article, the list of "famous people" keeps growing. None of these people are Wikilinked, and Id like to delete the section as the first step towards cleaning up the entire thing. I requested a consensus on the Talk page, but no responses as yet... perhaps this is not the forum for such a request to be made more public (if so, please direct me to the right place on my Talk page) but Id certainly like a couple more eyes to look over the article and add their comments. Metao 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have gotten no response, be bold and edit as you see fit :) Bjelleklang-talk 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fleet Command

New article and first time, looking for input. Mike D 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay, but needs more sources, especially for the section on realism. It is very important that articles remain verifiable, and as such, any claims in an article must be backed up with a source. The article also needs information on the notability on the game; how many units sold, critical reception, etc. Bjelleklang-talk 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pinkerton Academy

I've made many edits over the month and recently created the Academics and Extra-curricular sections. I've also added many of the notable alumni (though I think some of them are not notable enough). I've uploaded a picture using a fair use rationale but I think it may not fit the fair use policy. I need feedback and suggestions on how to expand the article.--EvaGears 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, but could probably do with some sources for the history section. Great work on the section on notable alumni, wish all articles had as good references... ;) Bjelleklang-talk 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SynchronX and Moo Mapper

Hello, everyone. Could someone please take a look at those articles? I just want to know if that style of writing is suitable for general Wikipedia editing and whether or not I should change my writing style. Comments would be appreciated; thank you! Matt489Talk 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both looks like they could be good given a little more work. First of all, you need to indicate the notability of both applications; the articles doesn't say anything about their importance, user/industry feedback, or spinoffs/similar. This needs to be added, if not you can risk that the articles will be deleted for not passing Wikipedia's notability requirements. Bjelleklang-talk 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Proximity effect

The Proximity effect in audio section of Proximity effect has been completely rewritten.I am a first time editor looking for any constructive feedback.Thanks in advance.

Some thoughts: The introduction is vague and too short. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings): "Avoid restating the subject of the article or of an enclosing section in heading titles". (Thus "Atomic physics", rather than "Proximity effect in atomic physics".) In the main article some illustrations would probably be helpful, or at least make it more engaging. The atomic physics section could use some expansion, including an explanation of the effect as well as the meaning of "proximate" at this scale. (Is it on the order of an atomic diameter, for example?) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments.The only section to which I have made contributions is the audio section.I did not lay out the heading titles so I am a little unconfortable editing them.I like the idea of adding illustrations to make it easier to understand the effect described.I'll get to this shortly--Jack Cartland 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem and thanks. I went ahead and updated the section titles per "Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages". — RJH (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

I'd like to get the above article assessed (Start, A class, B class, etc) and get some general feedback on it so I have a better idea of where I can improve it. Is this the right place to ask? --Jim (Talk) 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be a good idea to leave a note on the relevant wikiproject's talk page. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Morier

A month ago I submitted corrections to the article on James Justinian Morier which were accepted and the corrected article is available. But at the same time, after unsuccessfully trying to register, I submitted short articles on his brothers John Philip and David Richard, written from my own knowledge as the author of their biography, because I thought they too should be included. So far these have not appeared. Have they been accepted and if so when will they appear? If they have not been accepted why not?80.168.173.57 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you have a problem trying to register? It seems a pretty straight forward process. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Manises UFO Incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manises_UFO_Incident

As I'm not a native English speaker, I would like that someone could check this new article because I'm worry about my broken English. Thanks in advance.

  • I took a look at it, and aside form a few changes in vocab, it seems fine. Bosola 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this article needs to source the claims about the detected UFOs and the witnesses. - Ilse@ 13:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perplex City

I did some rearranging and expansion of this article, and I'm looking for some feedback on how the article feels now. Mostly concerning Intro, organization, whether it feels like a complete summary, and any other comments. -AtionSong 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you can improve the article by using the lead not as an introduction to but as a summary of the article. When I start reading the article I am not properly introduced to the way this particular ARG is played, I think this should be explained before the 'Story' section. - Ilse@ 13:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas College, Perth

Aquinas College, Perth - I have made some pretty major edits, more than 500 on the article over the last 2 months, the article has grown from little more than the basic info to one that has alot - it now has 7 daughter articles. It would be great to see where i can improve this article. Thanks =) Smbarnzy 13:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I found some 'empty' references. - Ilse@ 14:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

I have tried to fix up this article, and it is maintained. What can I do to make it better? Tenacious D Fans 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I've removed the {{expand}} tag. :) Xiner (talk, email) 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

John Mackey

In the article about John Mackey, his year of birth seems to be in question. He was born 8/15/1953 in Houston, TX. I know this because I am his sister. Thanks Dorothy Mackey Lurie'

Which John Mackey are you referring to? Is there a dispute about the birth information, or is it just missing? In the first case you best use the talk page of the article to discuss the issue, in the second case you can just add the date to the article (and preferably add an online source). - Ilse@ 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Martha Washingtonians

The old version was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Washingtonians&oldid=91010142

Anyway, I've tried to streamline the style and information. This is a quite significant edit- could someone check it out please?

There is quite a bit of what appears to be opinion-based text, which is definitely in need of citations. (Particularly "As an organization, it was comprised of wives, ... and other female relatives of drunken men.") Could the references be converted to use Wikipedia:Footnotes? Also I'd recommend trying the Wikipedia:Citation templates. I can also see what appear to be multiple spelling errors ("am ore", proipriety, owmen) and at least one missing period. The page could also use an illustration. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasmonean

Looking for interested editors for this subject of ancient Judean history in a period that spans Jewish history from Alexander the Great to the Roman Empire and includes the period of the Maccabean Revolt and Hanukkah.I have been expanding/editing alone for a while and I can't even see the obvious errors anymore, let alone get a fresh sense of the flow and scope of the article.I don't think it's ready for WP:PR, needing references and much more first.Kaisershatner 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Judaism and Ancient History categories to the article.This should increase the number of editors who find, read and work on the article.You may want to search for additional appropriate categories and add them too.Also consider looking for appropriate articles that should mention the Hasmoneans, and add content to those articles, including a wikilink to this one. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 12:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne

We have constant NPOV disputes regarding this controversial figure. Does anybody have any ideas about how we could resolve the problems without losing all sense of rationality? -- Qarnos 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there are a few things you could do. First add a NPOV tag where needed to warm fellow readers, a list of tags to use is available here: WP:NPOVD. Next you might need the help of an admin, so go here: WP:RFPP and list the article to be requested for semi-protection, if the edits are vandalism or unreferenced garbage made by IP addresses or if a user passes the 3 reverts rule. If this is not the case, then head right to WP:RFAR, list the article in the fashion shown, and hopefully it should help you out. Bobo is soft 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Hey

The article has been revised after speedy deletion. Comments and improvements of the article by experienced Wikipedians are welcome here – especially by experts in information science. See the recent talk about the revision here. ThT 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC), ThT 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Has he accomplished anything notable, other than a study? Otherwise the article probably needs to expand on what makes that one study particularly notable. From my experience in the AfD process, Ph.D. candidates are generally not considered notable in their own right, and are unlikely to pass the average professor test. Is analystic a word? — RJH (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to describe the importance of the study more in detail, but maybe this needs a native speaker to make it clear. IMHO the prominent use of that study in the training program of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission makes him "a significant expert in his or her area" (average professor test). But it would help, if others see this in the same way. --ThT 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That helps a little. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Golden Film

The article is assessed as Start-class by User:Supernumerary. I would like to receive some feedback on elements of the article I could expand or elements I should add to get the article towards B- or GA-class. Thank you for your help, Ilse@ 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the introduction contains the full text of the article, with the rest just a list with no claim to notability. You may also want to find other sources that mention this reward (i.e., find claim to notability for your article). Xiner (talk, email) 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I changed the introduction to a summary of the article and moved the content to separate sections. I also added some critique to the award, a section that can still be expanded. - Ilse@ 10:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamparsum Limonciyan

Hello, I have expanded this article. I need feedback on where to go, how it should be expanded further, what to do to improve the article. Any feedback is appreciated. --Free smyrnan 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fairly good already, although there are a few missing commas from parenthetical phrases. I would like to see an illustration or two showing the Hamparsum notation system. Otherwise nothing really springs to mind. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

František Plánička

This biographical article has undergone a relatively large expansion during the past 3-4 months; however, a high percentage of that work has been done by one user, myself. I want to make sure it is going in the right direction and that it is not full of mistakes and/or biased. Any comments will be much appreciated. --ChaChaFut 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Flood (Halo)

Hey chaps, I just had a question relating ot writing about fiction in general and as it applies to the edits I'm doing to the above page in particular:

I've read the guidelines on writing about fiction, especially as it relates to this page I'm trying to clean up (in-universe and such.) But I'm having problems. I fully understand the whole 'sources beyond what (in this case) the player of the game sees, and no inferences from that' but frankly, I'm getting annoyed with it. Rewriting all the passages to make it 'out of universe' gives the writing a strained feel- not to mention repetitive. However, I do also want to know if providing references, I don't know, somewhat... absolves you of some of issues? Regardless, does anyone have some tips to make out of universe stuff sound better? Check out the article for what I mean, reference-wise and all. DÃ¥vid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The writing style seemed fine to me, apart from some minor editing issues. I'm not clear how you think the text is "strained". However, I did find that many of the paragraphs are too long. These become tiresome for the reader; I'd suggest breaking them up (at appropriate locations) into 2-3 smaller paragraphs. Also the introduction mentions "vectors" but doesn't explain them. Should I assume that is a biological vector? Maybe a link would help, or a parenthesized explanation? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus decision-making

i have done a complete rewrite of Consensus decision-making and am looking for general feedback, with emphasis on how to get it up to WP:GA status. thanks for your input! -- frymaster 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. My one suggestion would be your references. Try converting them using citation templates for footnotes: WP:CITET. Many GA and FA use this method. Also resize them a bit smaller by placing < div class="references-small">< references /> (remove the spaces after each "<") in the references section. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Great job on the references. The format is that footnotes always appear at the end of a sentence, never in the middle, and there is not a space between the footnote number and punctuation mark. Bobo is soft 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Roller hockey at the 1992 Summer Olympics

I don't know if this article has been edited enough in order to be peer reviewed (I guess it meets the majority of the criteria) so I'd like to ask anyone available to give their opinion and suggestions. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, good olympic stats article so far. I'll try my best for some feedback. First, make the "footnotes" appear just at the bottom of the "Competition" section, as a footnotes section is usually reserved for references and tiny notes can actually be included in the article itself. If that's too difficult, then just rename it "Notes". Also the intro paragraph could use a little fine tuning to make it sound more official for an encyclopedia article and make sure that it can be universally understood as best as possible by someone not familiar with the topic. For example it says, The first three in each group advanced to the semi-finals which were played in the Pavelló d'Esports de Reus, Reus, on a league-system, what is a league-system exactly? Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions! I tried to follow them as best as I could. I hope it's somehow better now. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I went and corrected the writing a bit, it reads great now. Bobo is soft 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've checked your edit and (apart repeating some wikilinks which already existed) I believe you helped a lot! Thank you so much, again ;) What about the sub-articles? Could you take a quick peak at those too, or should I open a separate topic for them (they're 4 separate pages but all related to this parent article). Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome. I looked at the sub-articles and they look fine. You could also change the footnotes to notes there as well. I think that the Group A and Group B articles are small enough that you should consider merging them and renaming the article "Groups A and B". One benefit it is easily to manage just one article than two on the groups. The articles themselves are trivial sports statistics and one article should do for both. Bobo is soft 02:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
All done. I merged the group articles and renamed it to Roller hockey at the 1992 Summer Olympics - Preliminary round and updated the main article accordingly. I think it's "tidier" now, no? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Visible digital watermarking.jpg

I made Image:Visible digital watermarking.jpg a while ago to illustrate the concept of visible digital watermarking, but ever since I uploaded it I've felt uncomfortable with the fact that it's my name written across the image (because it seems like some kind of self-promotion). The reason I originally chose to use my name and the date is that these are properties of the image that will never change. Other possibilities I have considered include the text "Wikipedia" (but this makes the image less useful for other projects), "watermark" (but this isn't suitable for other languages), or some meaningless number or series of shapes. What do people think about this? —Bkell (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it's trying to illustrate watermarking, and since the author and copyright date are usually included in such watermarks, I think it's a good example of what it's trying to illustrate, hence a good encyclopedic image. I wouldn't worry too much about it being self-promoting, unless you're concerned about releasing your name. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Gatekeepers

Can anyone give me some tips on how to improve this article? Or is it already pretty much done?

Hello, nicely done and thanks for this good example. This seems to meet most of the criteria for being a perfect article (WP:PERFECT). Just a couple of things though... In the lists, it was weird that the description of the individuals started to the left of the bullet, but I fixed that. Also a couple of statements could use references or rewrites:
  • The book was generally very well received, with many claiming it portrayed the changing face of an increasingly competitive college admissions process, and
  • However, some critics questioned if profiling the admissions practices of a specific Northeast, highly selective liberal arts school would lead to an accurate portrayal of college admissions throughout the country.
Maybe these were intended as introduction to paragraphs that were to contain the references to back up these claims, but the sentences following each of these don't back up these introductory statements. (PS. Please sign your posts to discussions with four tildes: ~~~~. That will automatically be replaced with your signature when you save the page) Sancho McCann 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Racemization

Hello everyone! This is one of my first real articles I've been working on, and while it still needs some work I'd really appreciate any input anyone has. I'm sorry to use such a formal channel but I havn't made any wiki friends yet and I'm hoping this will get that ball rolling!

It's about the formation of a racemic mixture in chemistry. I've tried to detail the broad concepts, as well as scratching the surface and pointing towards where others could get more information. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! --Robert Stone, Jr. 09:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good for a stub, but most of that science stuff went waaaaaayy over my head. Perhaps some external links to notable sites talking about said topic? DÃ¥vid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out David Fuchs! Could I ask what was too complex and I can make sure I explain that better? I tried to put the complex stuff like SN1 with a link regarding that reaction and such for anyone who was curious, do you think I should just come right out and explain it in this article? Thanks again for taking a look! --Robert Stone, Jr. 21:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok first off, I've only taken introductory bio courses, so nothing fancy, keep that in mind. First off, maybe make Stereochemistry section an internal link or something like that? there's a page on it, so it could help... secondly, I think that the lead could be added on to. Ok, so I know its the partial conversion of... etc., but what significance does it have? Otherwise people not specifically looking for that term are gonna leave. DÃ¥vid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Robert, I'd agree that the article looks in good shape for an early one. Biggest hole right now is a lack of references. Look at Wikipedia:Citation_templates for the how-to. What you've got in there so far is mostly pretty general - citing a couple of college-level chem texts should be adequate.
The article makes it sound like carbocation is the only way that racemic mixtures formed; that doesn't seem right.
A picture would punch it up a bit. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Image_Request is a place to ask for help. David.Throop 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to be too critical, as many tech/science articles here share this problem, but the article needs to be written down to the generic audience--the customer reader--not to place a premium on technical crispness like that of a professional journal. If you keep an audience in mind of 11-15 years, you should strike it right--it's totally clueless introductory material to those kids, so will serve the divorced housewife barefoot and pregnant as well, so to speak.

   As such, I'd move up and expand the definitions section, expand the intro, and write a bit more contextual explanation into each sentence. Kudos on a great first effort. Reread WP:MOS on introductory paragraphs if you're doing sci-tech articles, and review the use of bold text as well. Most of those articles generally fail right there--this is a general encyclopedia, not to be written for the grad or even the college student. A lot of explanation can be contained by a careful selection and by the introduction order of wikilinks--there is no reason to not link on the second or third use, vice the first if it aids the flow and understanding. Best wishes // FrankB 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Curly horse merge/redirect to Bashkir Curly?

I've been trying to cleanup the Curly horse article, but I have doubts about it's worthiness, given it's origins as an advertisement. It may be beyond recovery. I think Bashkir Curly is far closer to Wikipedia's standards that Curly horse should probably be a redirect. Other thoughts? Xaxafrad 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirected Sancho McCann 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Although the redirect was already done, there are some further improvements that you can do. Check out the Wikipedia manual of style (WP:STYLE) for guidelines on capitalization of headings for example. Also, as in most articles, more references would greatly improve the article. Sancho McCann 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Discrimination2

I've developed this template to bring together all discrimination-related articles into a sensibly arranged, but compact and non-exhaustive form. I think the arrangement as it is now makes the most sense to me, though perhaps terms could use tweaking. Looking for broader feedback. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit excessive. On one article it was crowding another tall template. Why not use a bottom of page format where it doesn't impose so much on text and other boxes on the right margins. That's generally what history topics do with big templates. // FrankB 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Constantine Andreou

Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on this article and some suggestions on how to grow it. --Kimonandreou 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be a great improvement if you added references for the information, especially sentences like "is recognized as one of the most eminent figures in the international art scene". I tried looking on Google for information about him outside of Wikipedia and could not find anything other than his inclusion on a couple of lists of painters and a fan website (the one you included as a reference), so I suspect you won't get many references off of the internet. Maybe you have access to some publications that are not published online... art journals or magazines? You could cite those as references. (Also, two of the four references/external links do not point to working websites). Sancho McCann 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! I'll work on the references (I did take them out of books). As for the statement is recognized as one of the most eminent figures in the international art scene, it was from a speech from the Greek Minister of Culture when Andreou was presented with the "l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres" award. How would I reference that? --Kimonandreou 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I don't know if I have the answer, but my opinion would be that if the only source you have is a speech, then what you would be contributing is original research (WP:Original_Research). To avoid that, you'd need to wait for another source to reference the speech, or maybe right out declare the same thing. Then you could include the information in Wikipedia. Sancho McCann 07:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I made some minor fixes to the references. 1) Stated that that section was from the minister's speech 2) Fixed the links (updated or stated when discovered invalid as per WP:Citing_sources). I'm still looking for journals and magazines. --Kimonandreou 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert N.C. Nix, Jr.

I made some major edits to this article over the last month (see [8]). I'd be interested in whatever feedback anyone has. JCO312 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Great improvement. I especially like that every statement that could possibly be questioned has a reference. However, the way that you have organized the references is confusing. I suspect that many of your references are used multiple times and this is what you're trying to show with "N. 4", or "Id". The proper way to use a reference multiple times is described at Wikipedia:Footnotes under the Citing a footnote more than once section. You basically name a reference the first time that you use it: <ref name="a_reference">http://www.link.com Description of this reference</ref>. Then when you want to use it later, you can just write <ref name="a_reference" /> (The backslash at the end of the ref tag is important.) Sancho McCann 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

William Alexander Hammond

I have had a couple editor reviews, but I would like to have my article writing reviewed. How can I improve? Thanks, Dar-Ape 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Like most many articles for feedback, my one suggestion would be to improve the references. Try converting them using the citation templates for footnotes: WP:CITET. Also resize them a bit smaller by placing < div class="references-small">< references /> (remove the spaces after each "<") in the references section. Also note that footnote numbers all go at the end of a sentence after the period, and there should be no space between the punctuation and the reference. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I have made the references into templates and checked for spacing. Please let me know if I missed something or if you think of another way in which I could improve the article. Dar-Ape 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvest (band)

I am requesting feedback on this article. Please let me know how I might improve it. If anyone knows of sources where I could find more information on the band, I'd really appreciate it.

Brief description of the topic: Harvest was a band from 1977-1995. They released 14 albums and 2 videos (that I know of) during their tenure. Their genre is Contemporary Christian/Gospel.

Thanks for any suggestions,

jamielng 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. You've done a good job with the style of this article. Other than some layout issues in the discography section, it fits in well with the rest of Wikipedia. As for the content though, I have some suggestions for improvement. It isn't apparent from this article that the Harvest meets the notability requirements (WP:MUSIC). You will need to work on showing that "it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Sancho McCann 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for reviewing the page. The layout issues you spoke of, do you mean the way that I incorporated music samples in with the discography? If so, is this allowed? Why or why not? I tried to give impeccable fair use rationale.
Re: the notability requirements, I thought that multiple meant two or more. I know that I'm pretty slim right now with only two, but they're the only ones I could find so far.
Thanks again for your review.
Take care,
jamielng 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. No, for the layout issues, I meant when I view the page (maybe at a different resolution than you), some of the [edit] links aren't in line and interfere with the adjacent columns. The fair use rationale seems right on. As for the references, yeah, two might be enough, but it would be nice to have a few more. I'll try to find some also. Sancho McCann 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I found some. I'll let you add these as you like.
  • [9] This describes Paul's involvement with Harvest and also has a short history of the band part-way through the article.
  • [10] Another Paul bio, with another short history of the band.
Maybe you have some access to magazines that aren't online. You could reference these too.
Sancho McCann 17:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sancho,
Thanks again for your help. Re: the interference with columns, I also have experienced this on other computers besides my primary one. I'll switch to two columns instead of three to avoid this - although it will lengthen the article.
Thanks a lot for looking up some more references! I'll work at getting their content incorporated. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any magazines that aren't online. I'm on the lookout, though, and would like to delve into the local libraries to see what I can find.
Thanks again for your feedback. Please let me know if you have other suggestions,
jamielng 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made the suggested changes.
Any other feedback would also be appreciated,
Thanks,
Jamie L. 16:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Park

I have recently completely rewritten the article, basically deleted and started over, but here is the difference, if you really want to see it. I am aiming to get this up to good article status, and was just looking for a neutral opinion on the matter. Any suggestions of improvement- content, tone, sections, citation or whatever needs improving would be very much welcomed. I take it the standard here is to answer here on this page, but, in case I forget I posted this, could you leave me a message on my wall to say that you have responded? Thanks. J Milburn 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman (TV program)

I'm requesting general feedback for the entire article. It isn't a very long article so it shouldn't be that long to read through. Another user and I have recently made a lot of updates and changes to the article, in an attempt to bring its quality up. It still needs some expansion, but we would like some feedback on what to improve. Thank you. Bignole 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems more than sufficient for the subject matter, particularly for a pilot episode that never made it to the tube. There's some fine tuning needed here and there, and the page could use some images. Otherwise nothing really sticks out, other than a certain excess in the amount of speculation (albeit cited.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I didn't think anyone would read it..lol. I will confere with the other editor that works on the page. Bignole 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks pretty complete to me. Maybe a little tweaking of Reaction as well. But the article could really do with an pic or two. After that, goto peerreview. Davey4 11:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Major edit: Wu Teh Yao

Good day! I've made a major edit on the article "Wu Teh Yao", a political scientist. It's practically a new article, since the information prior to my edit was "political scholar, educationist" (or something like that). I would be grateful if someone could look into the article and help on the formatting, citation, or even adding information. There are photos of Professor Wu, but I did not upload it as the copyright info is unclear. Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Eng Aun 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Stadtbahn

I've translated this article from its counterpart at de: and added some new information that wasn't in the originally translated article. It might have some linguistical quirks though, and I've probably put in the occasional unclear wording. doco (☏) 11:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish cochineal

I started this article a few days ago. It's about a lesser known, Central European cousin of the cochineal. I'm not a native English speaker, so please feel free to point out (or, better, correct) any linguistic or stylistic mistakes. Thanks, Kpalion 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kpalion, it is a magnificent article. I could only find a few minor items to adjust for grammar. My compliments on your work. Ken McE

Geography Cup

The Geography Cup article is the first full length article that I have written, so any comments whatsoever about what to improve, what to remove, etc. are much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Grhs126studenttalk 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very, very solid article. I'm trying to look for areas for improvement, but it all looks very good. Good internal citations, especially. The only thing I could suggest would be putting even more information in the article, such as quotations from founders and participants. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but I think you've done a fine job. --Tractorkingsfan 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for Smoking

I've recently done a lot of work on this article, mainly integrating the "trivia" section into the article and doing stylistic edits. Since I've done this over about nine edits, I'm not sure how to provide a diff, but please look at the article now as compared to how it stood at the time of the 14:24, 31 January 2007 edit by Erikster, who has also been helpful. To be honest, I'm mainly interested in whether this article still deserves to be classified as Start-class. --Tractorkingsfan 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was this request archived without being responded to in any way? I made considerable edits, none of which could be summarized by one diff, since they were spread out over time. It strikes me as rather inconsiderate just to say, "this one doesn't fit the bill, so let's ignore it!" If I had been contacted, I could have formatted the request differently to inspire someone to pay attention to it. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Direct Payment to User

A UK Social care initiative that gives people money to arrange their own social care.

First article I've written, might well be a stub. Dunno. Would appreciate some feedback.

NatashaUK 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi just a couple of thoughts after a quick glance.

Happy editing— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thought I wanted feedback but it turns out what I actually wanted was someone to write 'We love this article. You are the greatest of all wikipedians and a paragon of encyclopedic writing' Ah well. Thanks for the feedback, I'll make the changes you suggect and see if we can't get that response in my second article, tbc.

NatashaUK 09:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldversion.com

I am requesting article feedback about Oldversion.com as it now appears to read as an advertisement.

  • The article was nominated once for deletion, but was left with no consensus.
  • It has been tagged since October 2006 for lacking sources.

I made revisions recently, but most recent revisions now have made the article almost look like an advertisement to me (capitalized categories of software in the Software section). The talk page has it that my most recent revision casted "a very negative spin on it".

Article history shows that the most recent edits were made by User:MrToasty and then an IP user and then a user with a rather long edit history.

I do admit that the my revision contained original research and facts that needed proper sources and that its Criticism section appeared larger than the Advantages section. — Which is why I need comment on my revision, too. If comment on my revision cannot be put in here, I welcome relevant comment on my talk page. -Mardus 06:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LJM

I created this artlicle about LJM and I want your advice on it and since it is only a stub. I would appreciate if anybody could expand it. Thanks in advance.

I wonder how much can be written on the subject. Can it be included within Enron or Andy Fastow? Xiner (talk, email) 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Smirks

Looking for suggestions as to what needs to be done to make this article suitable for rating as "Start" or preferably "B". Ringbark 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll need some inline citations/footnotes. See WP:FN for the initial info you'll need. Your references, to be complete, should use the citation templates for footnotes: WP:CITET. Also resize your references section a bit smaller by placing < div class="references-small">< references /> (remove the spaces after each "<") in the references section. Also note that footnote numbers all go at the end of a sentence after the period (not in the middle of a sentence), and there should be no space between the punctuation and the reference. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tangatawhenua.com

Tangatawhenua.com is a web-based Maori-focused newsletter (the only digital periodic serial of its kind). Is the article NPOV enough? Looking forward to any assistance you can provide. Atutahi 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The neutrality of this page seems fine to me. The statement that "It is the only web-based media company of its kind in the world" is somewhat ambiguous. Does "of its kind" refer to that fact that it is Māori run and operated? — RJH (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven Ford

The picture posted for Steven Ford is not Steven Ford. It is his brother. Steven is the son with the hair loss pattern similiar to that of his father, former President Gerald R. Ford. Steven is the handsome one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.238.71 (talk • contribs)

The talk page suggests that this has been corrected. — RJH (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Air Cadets

Hello. I've been working on this with a few other main contributors and have a feeling that we're all pretty involved with the subject matter of this article, so it will be good to have some feedback from the community. Comments on anything are appreciated... layout, content, presentation, style, future work, whatever... Thanks! Sancho McCann 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall it seems fine to me. I only found a few minor issues that you may wish to address:
  • The lead section states that "The purpose has since changed" but it does not say to what.
  • Department of National Defence and World War Two could be linked in the lead section.
  • The statement that "cadets... are not expected to join the Canadian Forces" could be interpreted in a negative manner. Would it be better to say, "..are not required to join the Canadian Forces"?
  • The hyphen in the second paragraph, Ranks section, could be replaced by a &mdash;.
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with all of your observations, and have worked them into the article.Sancho McCann 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oronamin C Drink

This is my first article!

I have translated from its counterpart at ja: and would love your feedback. Specifically tell me if you notice any style mistakes or content holes. Also I am wondering if the Imitation Products section is biased.

Oronamin C Drink (オロナミンCドリンク), produced by Otsuka Chemical Holdings Co., Ltd., (distributed an sold by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.) is a carbonated beverage available in Japan. It is commonly called Oronamin C or Oronamin. Its name is similar to the Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. beverage "Arinamin" and its name comes from Otsuka's own Oronamin H Ointment and the main ingredient, vitamin C.

Thanks! --Quylob 11:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to provide the best feedback I can. Here are my suggestions:

  • 1. In the advertisements section especially, or wherever possible (intro section is okay though), consider reducing the amount of names and words in Japanese lettering. It is not useful for the average reader on English Wikipedia and if someone wanted to read Japanese in an article, they would do so in the Japanese Wikipedia version of the article.
  • 2. Inline citation references are an essential part of any good article on Wikipedia. See WP:FN for the proper info on how to add them.
  • 3. The Genki hatsuratsÅ«? advertisement battle section contains almost all red links, and the list of names seems non-notable. Consider shortening or removing that list.
  • Other than that I don't know enough about the topic to correct anything else. Also, a tiny suggestion, when you make an edit to an article, consider doing medium sized edits instead of tens of tiny edits and clogging up the article history, but that's not too important.

Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Fantastic! Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.

As for #4, do you use an external editor to make changes? So far I only edit in a web browser, so I'm afraid of losing changes and have the tendency to over-save.--Quylob 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. I edit in the normal Wikipedia space in a web browser, so I don't know anything about external programs. I think Auto Wiki Browser is a popular one though, I'm sure there's lots of other editors who are familiar with it. Bobo is soft 06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made the easier changes you listed and am looking into some citations ... thanks again! --Quylob 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Blur

I've made some major edits to this article (see [11]). I would be interested to see what feedback anyone has for it. ErleGrey 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro seems a little long. The second two paragraphs that are pretty dense and the info is repeated later in the article. Maybe trim down those two paragraphs to give a shorter overview and it will be a pretty solid article. Zzz345zzZ 02:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Constantine Andreou

I'm working on the citations and POV issues on the article. I'd like some feedback on whether it's got a NPOV or not now and whether I need more references and citations (for what's already written). There are some sections that still need to be expanded (feel free to expand them) but, knowing where the article currently stands would be great. --Kimon 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty NPOV to me. Not sure if you need numerous lists for all of his sculptures and paintings though, seperated out by date. That seems a little excessive. Dr Popularity 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks! So, who can remove the {{POV}} tag? Also, I broke the artwork into separate lists as I'm still working on the individual lists. I may change the structure and break them into themes but, by date range seemed logical to me. I'm open to suggestions though. --Kimon 03:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, as far as I'm concerned, it's baseless (and if anyone re-adds it, they should add an explanation on the Talk page). I would personally just have one list for sculptures and one for paintings, and only if you can't integrate them into the main article (I've no idea just how prolific he was). Compare to similar articles like Vincent van Gogh and El Greco, which only list the notable works of art.
Thanks! Good idea on just listing the notable works of art. I'll take a stab at it. I was basing this article on the model used by the Pablo Picasso one where all works are listed. --Kimon 13:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Chung Ling High School

This is my another major edit, which the difference is here. This article concerns a school in Penang, Malaysia offering secondary and pre-university education. Again, thanks in advance!
Eng Aun 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like good work. Here's a few things I noticed:
  • The introduction is far too short (suggest looking at Wikipedia:Lead section)
  • The table of contents seems too long. Perhaps the sub-section headings in the "The campus" section can be replaced by bolded text?
  • Automated PR reviews flags sub-sections that begin with "an" or "the". So "The identity" could be "Identity", for example.
  • Your history section is in need of citations.
  • I'm not sure about the use of so much non-English language in the text; most non-native speakers won't know what that means anyway.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deadspin

Article has undergone lots of change recently and was wondering what should be added/changed. I was thinking adding more about the actual content. Zzz345zzZ 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The page text looks fine, but it seems entirely favorable to the web site. Has there been any publicized criticism? What are their sources of income? Some of the citations are improperly placed before punctuation. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New Article

Hi i am wondering if i am doing a good job on a article i made on wikipedia.org This is it. Banga City PLease post some feedback on what i can improve on on my talk page. --Avenue 51 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean Banga (City)? — RJH (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexamenos graffito

I've just created this article and would love to receive any feedback. Thanks! Grover cleveland 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's perhaps a few too many section headings; almost one per paragraph. Could they be reduced in number? Also your citations are preceding punctuation. (Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags) Other than that the article seems fine to me. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Rabinowitz

I've expanded this entry quite a bit, though nobody seems to be paying much attention to it. That many unanswered edits to it in a row makes me feel a little bit self-conscious. I'd be thankful if somebody else would take a look at it. — CharlotteWebb 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of information in the article and you have your citations but, the article is lacking any headings. Take a look at WP:WPBIO for some pointers. You should also add an infobox (perhaps Template:Infobox Politician). I'm not an expert editor but, I'd start there. --Kimon 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Colombia Three

I've done some improvement work on this article from the version I first saw. Weggie added the headings I didn't get round to adding as I planned to do that after adding the much needed sources. Any suggestions for further improvement please? One Night In Hackney 12:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a heck of a lot better now! I would like to read some more about their history prior to being arrested, what else did they do in Colombia what training were they providing, how were they contacted, international reactions, etc. Since the article is on the three men that comprise the group, I would like to know more than just the arrest and result. It sounds like a very interesting story and I want to read a lot more about it. --Kimon 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Osborne Reef

Osborne Reef is a failed artificial reef that, ironically, is causing more damage to underwater habitats than it is providing them. I effectively wrote the entirety of the article, and have received few edits since. I'd really like to get some input on the article, as well as maybe some help with introducing further links into other articles as appropriate (to clear out the {{orphan}} tag). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi pd_THOR, the article looks great actually. The inline citations add the required verifiability to the article and the general structure looks fine for now. Rest assured that an orphan article is not always a non-notable article. Some points for improvement are:
  • Remove some of the red links and only add internal links later if those red links are ever created. And remove the red links on the author's names in the references section.
  • Dates should be written as August 21, 2006 instead of 2006-08-21. The latter method is only used for inline citations.
As for the orphan tag, there isn't much you can do if there are not many artificial reef articles, perhaps "Environmental disaster" is a possibility you can work with, but I'm not an expert.
Bobo is soft 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the dates easily enough, and removed the redlinks from the reference authors that I doubt garner their own Wikipedia article. I created an article or two to rectify some of the redlinks in the article itself, but nothing crazy--and nothing that wouldn't warrant an article on its own anyways. I gave some thought to the {{orphan}} problem, and without indiscriminately adding "see also" to various applicable articles, I'm not sure how to well-insert this article into others.

Anybody have other input for the article; suggestions? Is this WP:GA submission material, or should it just stay as is for now? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Quasi-relationship

About non-realted people with the same last name.

Is there anything to this topic besides possible coincidence? You will probably want to avoid material that could be excluded under WP:NOT. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statelessness

Any suggestion for content or changes? DavidYork71 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually go right to the end of the page for new entries, so this might get missed up here at the top. Here's a few thoughts:
  • The page looks a little too "listy" (lots of bulleted lists rather than prose).
  • It is a little weak on citations. I'd also recommend using the teplates on "Wikipedia:Citation templates" so your citations are in the standard format.
  • The page could use more illustrations.
  • Too many sections use the page title in the section headings. (See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Wording.)
  • Why doesn't the article mention Diaspora?
I hope these were somewhat helpful. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange Agreement

Both articles created by me. Where can I access a copy of the draft Agreement and how can I get a picture of the Indonesian Justice Minister for this? DavidYork71 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're getting more advice than you probably wanted over at the article's AfD. You did a nice job of getting proper attribution from reliable sources and that's why the debate's going as well as it is. Even so, my first thought upon seeing the article was that it would be better placed as a section of a larger article for now. Once it gets too long for the parent article, it can again be split off into an independent article. My guess is that is what the consensus of the AfD is going to be too. Don't be discouraged, though; it's a very well done article with good graphics, citations, and it's very clearly written. We all get some of our stuff shot down once in a while, so try not to let it get to you. Best Wishes! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

James Sabow

Hello, this article is about the USMC Colonel who died the morning of January 22, 1991 at his backyard quarters on MCAS El Toro in Orange County. I would appreciate any feedback that might be provided. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article doesn't exist --Kimon 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a redirect to James E. Sabow. It was deleted along with that article following an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James E. Sabow (2nd nomination) —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

STS-74

Hi there! I have just embarked on a review of the Shuttle-Mir program missions, and have just completed my first article rewrite. The original article was made up mainly of original pre-flight NASA text, so seemed to be stuck in an extremely odd timewarp. I have restructured and rewritten the article and added a new image, and would appreciate any comments as to how I could improve it further, comments I will find useful as I sort out the other mission pages.

Here is the comparison page for the original article and my rewrite: [12]

A nice, decently thorough article. Here's a few observations that may or may not be useful:
  • The introduction is somewhat brief. I could do with another paragraph.
  • Is there any information on early mission planning? When did the crew begin training for the mission? How and why were the crew members selected?
  • Inconsistent date format: 19/11/95 and November 11, 1995, for example.
  • Probably should replace dash with &mdash; in "November 15 - 19" section
  • You might make mention of who was on board the Mir at the time. It appears that there were no crew members exchanged. Was there a reason for this? Can this be explained?
  • "...docked to Mirs Kristall module..." => I believe should have an apostrophe: "Mir's".
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the advice - i'll do a bit more research and have a review of my text, then get back to you. Colds7ream 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, i've done a bit more ferreting about for facts and had a review of my text, fixing, I hope, most of the issues. I'd appreciate any more comments, as i'd really like to make this page my first Good Article. The comparison page is here: [13] Colds7ream 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're pretty much at GA now. If you don't want to try a peer review for some reason, you might as well go for it and see if it passes. If it fails you can always address the comments and then try again. — RJH (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - I have nominated the article, so let's see what happens! Colds7ream 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New Cuyama, CA

I've been lurking for some time on the WP, improving my tact, understanding and skills. I recently wrote my first fresh article from scratch last week on a growing town in California (New Cuyama) that did not have any data, and spent the next few days revisiting it to catch any extras or detail that might have been left out. I'd love to get some feedback on this article, my style, and content. Thank you Wikipedians! McA 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Anyone?
It's well written and is very clear to read. Interesting too. You should find some more references for some things like that bit about the name coming from clamshells or the Native Americans who lived there previously. Your references section should come before the external links section. You might want to look into using citation templates so that your citations come out in a standardized format. You also should place an appropriate stub tag on it. Lastly, most town articles list some vital statistics like a population figure. Overall it looks like an article with a good future to it. Good work! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Health care proxy

Hi, this my first article on Wikipedia. Its been up for a week now and I was wondering if there are any suggestions about things that I need to do to improve it. Thanks;) Bader_isu

Try adding useful internal links.--Rmky87 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Artificial limb

The article on artificial limbs was previously a stub and I expanded it so it was a complete article. I could use any general advice on the article (this is the first one I wrote).

The article may be found here: Artificial limb. talkGiler S 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks pretty decent to me. Additional illustrations would make it a more appealing visually. You could add a section on Media uses, such as in the film The Fugitive (1993 film). — RJH (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Great job so far. For the footnotes, you could shrink them a bit by placing < div class="references-small">
< references /> (remove the spaces before the < and >). For the cost section, watch out for the iffy tone, try to make it sound more professional. Also you don't need two spaces between sections, only one. Bobo is soft 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rotary phase converter redundant, erroneous and commercial.

Would anyone please review the Rotary phase converter page. I am hesitant to do any of the chnages necessary to this page without some support. As a newbie I would like advice and as a person with commercial interests in a related area I do not want to be biased or exposed to charges of bias.

The issues.

  • 1. Rotary converter covers the subject in a less biased manner. Rotary phase converter is redundant since it is siply a species of rotary converter..
  • 2. Rotary phase converter is full of value statements that have to do with a particular manufacturer --such as-- "The best types of RPC use actual three phase generators" a statement which would be difficult if not impossible to validate: The best in what sense?? Horsepower/dollar?? Voltage balance at full load?? Best for my application??

The generator claim is one also made by American Rotary, which is the commercial company you get when you click on the external link "Parts For Building a Phase Converter". It should at least be supported by some sort of reference to literature. I have never seen this claim made in a technical article.

  • 3. The link to "article on power factor" goes to an "organization", every page of which is an ad for "PhasePerfect", another manufacturer.

The link to "List of commercial phase converter manufacturers" which was apparently added by a generous wikipedian to give these folks a place to post, is a redirect back to the Rotary phase converter page.

  • 4. The article is full of odd verbage.. "The quality of three phase power generated by such a phase converter may or may not be satisfactory," and "Besides RPCs (the most popular technology used to convert phase), there are other technologies available today that may or may not perform as well as this proven technology."

The page was likely built by a rotary phase converter manufacturer as evidenced by the external links and the arguments for what is the "best" technology. I am tempted to edit this article but am held back by the above considerations and questions. Should Rotary phase converter exist at all or just be an expansion of the Rotary converter article? There is very little real information in the article although it does contain some good links to "how to build your own" style articles.

Is anyone interested in this matter and willing to take a look at the page? I would be happy to make changes if they were vetted first. Better yet would someone else, clearly unbiased, become interested and do some of the editing. If I make changes, should I post a request here or elsewhere to get them reviewed and edited?

Thanks --Ottojas 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Parents of Suicides Internet Community

I recently rewrote this article to fix the "inappropriate tone" of the original article and provided some links to related groups/topics. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any additional sources of information for the group. The group's website http://www.parentsofsuicide.com/ doesn't provide any history on the group. I'm looking for feedback on the rewrite and also any additional sources of information for the group. Robevans isu 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were to come across the article now I'd AfD it for notability. Work on external sources and asserting notability or it will be, eventually. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Emergenetics

Was this article deleted?

I'm not really sure, but I don't find an old AfD template for that page. Was it a well-developed page? You might need to ask an Admin for help. — RJH (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The deletion log lists the reason as CSD G11. CSD G11 is a speedy deletion criteria that is meant for "blantant advertising". In other words, "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Note that I cannot actually see the deleted page. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Chelton Flight Systems

Hello, this is my first article on wikipedia. I'm wondering what you think needs improving? Also, do you think it is NPOV enough? Thanks.

It is very nicely formatted and well written. It's a much easier read than many technical articles I've come across. It does, however, come across as sounding a bit like an advertisement and it doesn't assert the company's notability. This is important because the article could be deleted if it's found to un-notable. Here's a guideline for asserting the notability of a company. You might also think of adding some citations so people can see that you're complying with the Attribution policy. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia and have a great day! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Treehugger.com

Hi, I created a page for Treehugger.com. I'm new at posting on wikipedia and could use some feedback on my page.

Thanks,

Please see Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This page needs to reference reliable third-party sources. Also, see Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Introduction; the article, for example, should have links to other articles that are relevant to the context. —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Try not to type headers in all CAPS. Ionescuac 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

National Black Chamber of Commerce

Hi,

It was suggested to me that I request a peer review. I don't think this article is developed enough for that, so I'm posting it here. What would you recommend I do to make this article better? Is the portal placement OK? Should I delete the external links? They were already there, but they don't seem relevant to the article. Thanks!--LtlKtytalk | contribs 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Good work on the article! You might consider inline referencing and citation templates for organisational purposes. I guess you got all of the information from that one source, but different subpages. In Gunston Hall, I dealt with this by making a "Citations" section as a subsection of the references section, allowing a shorter list of references followed by a more detailed list of the subpages of those references. Anyways, you don't have to do all that work, but I have found it is easier to do early on.
It's good to see that you are using a reliable-looking source, but it might also be good to get some outside information from secondary sources on the NBCC. News might be particularly interesting.
I hope that helps a little,
ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I'll ask again after I've edited using your suggestions.--LtlKtytalk | contribs 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Can someone take another look? Hope I don't have to post another top level topic. Thanks!--LtlKtytalk | contribs 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks great to me, although I guess you could get more feedback at WP:Peer review. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gunston Hall

Gunston Hall is a United States historical building, and was the home of George Mason. I am looking for general ideas for improvement, hopefully things I am capable of. I am not an expert on the topic. I am particularly interested in getting a second opinion on the reliability of the references. Thanks! ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted a request for peer review. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Saner Wonggoun

While I created the majority of this biographical article, it received a bout of attention after being on the Main Page as a WP:DYK entry. I'd like to consider it for B (or maybe even A) classification, but want to receive feedback and hopefully spur somebody else to decide on the articular quality in my stead. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting article! It has good narrative form and is interesting throughout. Good illustration and well referenced. I noticed a few places where it wandered between present and past tense. It could use some sections and probably should be tagged as an ongoing event. Overall, not much to gripe about; good work! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I did a little work to ensure only currently-relevant information is presented in the present tense, and added a little sectioning. I also tagged it as an ongoing court case, but cannot find any subsequent information to supplement the article with. Thanks for the input and do you have any other thoughts? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes' cattle problem

I created this about a month ago. I'd like especially to know if everything is sufficiently explained, and if there is anything missing from the article that you would expect to see. Thanks. --Sopoforic 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some questions:
  • Could you clarify the meaning of Diophantine analysis without the reader having to go to another page?
  • By the Sun god, did Archimedes mean Apollo?
  • By triangular number, does the poem mean a cube?
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the first: I'm not sure it'd be appropriate to do so. The particular meaning of Diophantine analysis isn't very important to understanding what the problem is--it's just the field of math that the problem falls under. I suppose that I could write: "...is a problem in Diophantine analysis, the study of polynomial equations with integer solutions." Is that sufficiently useful to justify inclusion, do you think?
Well I've received criticism in the past for submitting articles to FAC that use terminology that is too technically obscure for the average reader. Usually at least a brief explanation of the terms is requested. It's up to you really, but most non-mathematicians won't know what 'Diophantine analysis' means. Your example looks more than sufficient. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Part the second: Helios, I think. I can look that up to verify and put it in. Was Apollo actually the sun god?
According to the Apollo page he supplanted Helios as the Sun god. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Part the third: It does not mean quite that, indeed. I've provided a link for it (triangular number), since that is probably not something most people are familiar with.
Thanks a lot for your help. I deal with math all day, so I'm not always aware when I say something non-obvious. --Sopoforic 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I know the feeling. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Swaraj

Kindly give me your feedback for this article. I am interested in this subject and further wish to improve this article. Please see [14] for difference in the earlier and current versions. Thanks--Shahab 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The language used bothers me a little bit (e.g. "Actually, the key concepts..." and "It's actual meaning goes much beyond simply..."). You should probably try to reword this to have a more encyclopedic tone (don't say 'actually,' the whole second sentence of the lede may be unnecessary, etc.).
The section "The Swaraj Movement" is essentially just a timeline, it seems, and would be better as prose with some more information to add context (what sort of effect did the establishment of the Navajivan Trust have?).
Aside from these, there are some general style issues: section headings should have only the first word and proper nouns capitalized; you should have access dates on URLs used as references; you should include titles if possible for web addresses; the quotations should be worked into the article; you should make sure that the capitalization of swaraj is consistent within the article; you shouldn't repeat the title of the article in section headings, generally.
I hope this is helpful. --Sopoforic 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tried to implement your suggestions. What do you think now?--Shahab 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's much better, I think. Some of the wording still doesn't seem very good, but you've definitely improved it by adding context and better explanations. I'll see if I can rewrite a paragraph or so later to show you what sort of changes I'd make to the wording.
What still needs improved:
  • You don't need to link to Hind Swaraj in the external links, since there's a wikisouce link already to it.
  • You should use for the title of the other link: "Swaraj Foundation home page" or something like that; use its title rather than a description. A description in a addition to its title, though, would be fine.
  • You don't need access dates for external links unless they were used as references--and if they were, then they should be in the references section, instead.
  • You shouldn't duplicate links in the see also section that are also used in the article.
  • You should perhaps try to work some of the most closely related things in the see also section into the article, as well.
These are mostly pretty minor things; the biggest thing that needs improved is just the wording, which I'll try to help with later. Otherwise, the article is much better. Good work. --Sopoforic 15:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cademuir International School

I would love to have some feedback on this article. At the beginning, Cademuir was a Scottish School stub. It is about a school now being closed. This is the first article I am actively working on. It was quite a deep resarch work to bring a nearly-AfD-stub to something like Start-Class. I've added an image and some basic data on the right and described the last facts on the school. I want to learn from my edits and further improve this article. Recently I found some advanced statistics, but I don't know if it was worth an inclusion. Are there enough sources? Did I include enough photos? Should the table have the GPLed logo instead? If possible, wouldn't it be bad to include more information? My edit: [15] Thank you ! --Lazer erazer 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cúcuta

I'd like to make Cúcuta a featured article, please send me your feedback.

--Ricardocolombia 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've done a great job with this article, I can't see any huge errors, problems, or omissions. You can rightly be proud of what's been achieved here! Dr Popularity 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Good work. Solid integration of pictures, graphs, and info. Could use a few more reference links. Zzz345zzZ 02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a nice solid article with plenty of information and pictures. Not bad. :) Ionescuac 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a very good article already. It seems to have been translated from Spanish or written by a someone whose English is a second language, so it needs to be edited into a more "natural" English style. I hope someone with a bit of free time can do this. -Arch dude 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was turning the prose into more natural English, but being the idiot I am, I closed the tab before saving it. My only criticism is the awkwardness of the language at some points. Overall though, it is a very good article, which has a high chance of being featured somewhere down the track

The Backyardigans

General checkover, is there anything you feel could improved upon? --treelo talk 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For your references see Template:Cite web and make sure your web sources are fully referenced. It is not enough to just have the URL, but the title, date, access date, publisher etc. are need as well. Also, there should be no space between a punctuation and a footnote. Bobo is soft 06:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Stooges

Added More information to the 'Ted Healy and his stooges' section. I would like to get an idea what the community thinks is lacking from the article (not just the section I edited), what is not explained, what is unclear etc... (all comments are welcome and very much appreciated) -- DTGardner 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very well written and thorough, but at 56k long, the article becomes somewhat tiresome to read. The Ted Healy and his stooges section, for example, could stand alone as an independent article; interestingly the eponymous article you linked to in that section is a two sentence stub, I think it would be better if that were reversed. Another problem causing the article's length is the laundry lists at the end: The external links section is out of control and needs to be seriously pruned (I myself try to keep them to < 5 entries). The tributes section also needs to be shortened as does the catch phrases section. Does the slapstick section need so many examples? The members section would probably look better expressed as a wikitable. The sections could also be better organized; for example the Social commentary and satire section should probably follow immediately after the History section. Citations: For an article of this length to only have two citations is not so good— although I'm not sure whether the Books section and the Further reading section are meant to also be citations. You should use the citation templates to achieve a standardized format for your references, and I would suggest the use of the layout at Template:Reflist for your references section. Despite my criticism, I enjoyed the article and left better informed than I came. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Makah

major edit to this page - I'd like to know how well this article flows now. Gobonobo 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shuttle-Mir Program

Hello again! This is my second major article revision, and I'm kinda pleased with it. The original article was pretty much only Start Class, with proposals to merge and delete it, and I've restructured it, added lots of extra text, put in images and links and a fair amount of citations. I'd like to get this article to GA and then FA status, so any feedback would again be extremely appreciated, as the feedback I got for my last article, STS-74, helped me get it to GA! The comparison page is here: [16] Thanks, Colds7ream 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Simon (politician)

Former senator from Illinois, the article was choppy when I saw it first. I tried to clean it up and almost single-handedly made the inline citations (there was no citation at all before, which is kind of strange for a senator). Please give feedbacks so it can be improved further. Wooyi 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegetable oil economy

There are 3 different ways that vegetable oil is being used in vehicles, each with an article. Together these seem to have a bright future. There are many pages like hydrogen economy, ethanol economy, etc. where the characteristics and potential of other energy systems are discussed, so I made an article for vegetable oil economy. This is my first real article. I think parts of biodiesel probably should be moved to this and I started to discuss that on the biodiesel talk page. Any help appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincecate (talk • contribs)

Hello, Vincecate. A few suggestions related to the Vegetable oil economy article itself:
  • Capitalization: The first word of some of the wikilinks in the article are unnecessarily capitalized. Examples: "Biodiesel around the World"; "Air pollution". Links to articles are always case sensitive, except for the first letter of the article name, so Air pollution and air pollution will get you the same article. Also, only the first word of section headers should be capitalized, as well as any proper nouns (if any). See here for more info. Also, some of the wikilinks in the See also section needs capitalization.
  • Images: Per WP:MOS#Images, consider right-aligning the first image in the article, and staggering the remaining images left-and-right.
  • Templates: Consider repositioning the {{environmental technology}} template from under the See also section to the top right of the article.
I hope this has been of help. If any of this is unclear or if you need help with anything specific, feel free to leave me a message! —XhantarTalk 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much! I have done most of the easier stuff. I saw something about a bot that fixed up citations. Is there really such a thing? If I do nothing will they get fixed after awhile? Vincecate 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you have to fix the citations on your own. Bobo is soft 02:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Audio Home Recording Act

Took me longer than I'd like to admit to figure out how to request feedback. I've been working on this article and would appreciate it if someone gave it a look. We're having some difficulties figuring out how to properly frame/interpret the relevant caselaw on this statute, and frankly I'm not sure how Wikipedia or encyclopedias in general deal with issues of legal interpretation. Iamtfc 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It kind of looks like a big wall of text. Adding a picture or two would spice it up a bit and don't forget to site. ;) Ionescuac 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
A few references would be nice alongside those pictures. Wording is fine. It will never fbe fun like an article on Disney, but needs a to be referenced to solidify and some pictures to spice it up. Try Wikipedia Commons for soemthing suitable. Rgds, - Trident13 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Teruel

I picked up a stub article and expanded it, "The Battle of Teruel." I am wondering if it is still a stub. I am still doing the research on casualties as that data has been elusive.

Many thanks

GenghisTheHun 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

I'd say it's not a stub article. It looks like you have multiple citations to "Hugh Thomas" and four different versions of his book listed as the references—it would be difficult to determine which one was used for the page citations. — RJH (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Peace Fund

This is about a charitable organization. I don't know what to do about the name The is actually a part of the name. It isn't searchable. When I search for 'The Peace Fund', it comes up. When i search for 'peace fund', it doesn't. Any suggestions about what I should do? Also I know it needs more independent citations - can you also check for NPOV? Also, any other suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.--LtlKtytalk | contribs 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please disregard the searchable question. I suppose it hadn't been cataloged by the search engine yet. Now, it is showing up just fine. Any suggestions regarding contest would still be appreciated. Thanks.--LtlKtytalk | contribs 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval ships

I'm not sure where to go with this article, and would appreciate suggestions.--Tabun1015 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see information about the ship-building techniques of the period, and what innovations these particular models provided. (E.g. development of bulkier, sail-driven ships for use in the N. Atlantic.) It could use a history section, including major ship-building nations, the nature of their fleets and any key naval battles. Also is this specifically europe-oriented? How about a discussion of the rigging? Is there anything on ships built for river navigation? Thanks.[17] — RJH (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fluidized bed reactor

Hello everyone. I am new to Wikipedia have recently written a new article on fluidized bed reactors. This article is about a chemical reactor device where a bed of solid particles is fluidized or vigerously moved around by a fluid. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for additional content or other possible changes. Thanks in advance for your help and input! Hughesy127 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Here's a few comments.
  • This page describes a limitation on the velocity that you might want to mention. Also you might include something about the "excellent heat and mass transfer characteristics" in the introduction.
  • This sentence doesn't quite make sense to me: "Various utilities also use FBR’s for coal gasification, nuclear power plants, and water and waste treatment settings." It seems to be switching topic in mid-stream, going from applications to utilities.
  • Where does the "gas" come from in the following statement? "The high gas velocities present in this style of reactor often result in fine particles becoming entrained in the fluid."
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Rose Johns

This is a new article on an early civil rights activist who played a major role in ending school segregation. Any suggestions for revision will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

For your references use Template:Cite web and make sure your web sources are fully referenced. It is not enough to just have the URL, but the title, date, access date, publisher, etc. are needed as well. Hope this helps. Bobo is soft 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Sowers

I've just posted a complete overhaul of this page. As it's my first WP contribution, I'd appreciate any and all feedback. Before I worked on it, there was virtually no sourcing and a good deal of what I didn't think to be encyclopedic content/language. Here's a link to the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Sowers&diff=114682815&oldid=111020744 Thanks in advance. Sanfranman59 01:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Premru

American/British trombonist and composer. Think I've got it going now; I'd appreciate any general evaluation, and esp. on citation/reference style--the article relies heavily on online sources, so it didn't seem to make sense to separate them out as "External Links". I hope my solution makes sense. Also most of the article synthesizes multiple sources so it's difficult to footnote or Harvard-cite each item. Does it seem encyclopedic? Hopefully the text establishes notability. thanks.--Turangalila (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tartan Noir

I've written a completely new article for this subject, as the previous version wasn't really up to scratch. I've added a section on roots and influences, revised and expanded a list of Tartan Noir authors, added notable works in the genre. This is my first crack at a wiki article, and I'd like to know what others think of it. Many thanks. Edofedinburgh 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Screen Quotas

Could you come and give some comments for rivision. This is my article for screen quotas. Thank you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Quotas

I like the writing style used, however I will say that you should take a look at the formatting style used in some other articles to get a feel of how Wikipedia is generally formatted. Also, you can make internal links to articles like [[this]] which would output a link like this. Also, please sign your name by writing four tildes (~~~~) after making posts on project pages. Phuzion 03:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Katsuhiko Nakajima

  • This is an article I made about a week ago and have expanded on slightly since. I feel this could become one of the better wrestling articles on Wikipedia with some fine-tuning, and I'd like some advice on how to take it to the next level. Thanks. MarcK 10:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Suzanne Shell

Subject of article is a longtime activist who has been in the news recently for a notable case brought against Internet Archive. Though I have tried to be extremely meticulous with sourcing statements, the subject of the article has complained on the talk page about inaccuracy and NPOV. Please review the article and double check the sources, as well as provide any feedback on how it might be improved. Thanks! Jokestress 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

David Pines

I just created an article for David Pines, a theoretical physicist with a long career. The page needs a lot of clean up and is too list like.

The first thing it needs is some source that would tell something about him. Right now, it's mostly a list of awards and then of things he authored which could obviously be sources for other things. He certainly seems notable, so I'd think there'd be something out there about him.
Other items to note would be that the lead is too long. Even if you want all of that in the article, there's no need to list each individual thing out like that in the lead. The lead should just be a brief overview of why he is notable. The last sentence of the interests seciton is written in the first person. Mwelch 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

James Phinney Baxter

Can someone please check this over? I added headers but I don't think I split it up right. Tikuko 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead should definitely mention that he was the mayor specifically, rather than just "civic leader". After reading the lead section only, I had my doubts if he was even notable at all. Also, I wouldn't title a "Trivia" section. Just mention the poem as a regular part of the article. Mwelch 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Narasimha Rao

The prose of this article has ben called strange. Please comment on what should be done to improve it.--Shahab 10:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I found your article informative and quite readable. What I do suggest though is that you edit your heading/section titles to remove all but the initial caps so as to conform to the Wikipedia "Manual of Style" for articles (see under "Sections and Headings -->Wording"). And I made what I consider to be some minor edits to your section on religious strife and the Latur earthquake.  K. Kellogg-Smith 15:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGENDA

I'm trying to compile a list of all the hidden agendas we hold dear here at Wikipedia. Your feedback on the content and format of the page, and your contributions, would be greatly appreciated! Jouster  (whisper) 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Jouster! RFF is for requesting feedback on articles. I don't think there's a process for seeking feedback on pages in the Wikipedia namespace; you may wish to try a policy RFC. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Chelton Flight Systems

This is my first wikipedia article. I would like some general feedback on it. Is it following the correct form? Are the sentences too long? How is my puncuation and grammer? Thanks a lot.

You might want to review WP:ATT. You need to provide sources for everything you put in the article. And also fairly fundamentally, you need to assert why this company is notable. It's not appropriate to have a Wikipedia article for any old company just because it exists and is in business. There needs to be something notable about it. This article (and in particularly the lead paragraph) doesn't make clear what makes this company notable. It might well be notable, in fact, but there's nothing in there that tells me this right now. Did their TAWS system revolutionize the industry? Has it demonstrably met its goal of reducing accidents? What exactly that makes this company notable? Right now, all this article tells me is that Chelton is a company that exists and makes avionics components. Mwelch 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lilliput_(company)

Description: Lilliput is a professional manufacturer of mobile lcd video.

Ive created this article and its the first one Ive created. Since I hope this isnt my last major contribution, I would like to know what I can do better next time.

Greetings, Mizipor! In future, please remember to sign your posts on discussion forums (but not your edits to articles) with four tildes. To do so, click the signature button on the edit toolbar - it's in between the W and dash.
The article is currently a stub - a very short article providing only a little information on the company - so it is difficult to give any useful feedback. Once you have expanded the article with more information on the company, feel free to file another request for feedback.
Is Lilliput notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? If it is notable, the article should establish its notability. If it is not notable, the article may be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising; if you are closely affilated with Lilliput, please read our policy on conflicts of interest.
All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DAXCON Engineering, Inc.

Daxcon My article was flagged as being written like an advertisement. I have made changes throughout the whole page in an attempt to write it more like an encyclopedia article. However, I was hoping that I cuold have several other people look at it and make changes to it if they would like in an attempt to make it even more neutral.

You should make the references links so that oneself can go and read it. See WP:REF on how to make nice looking sourcelinks. Also, see Mwelch response to the Chelton article above. Read WP:ATT, what makes this company noteable? In what way have they changed the way the industry works (or similiar)? Mizipzor 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, Aullbw! Please remember to sign your posts on discussion pages (but not your edits to articles!) with four tidles. To do so, click on the signature button on the edit toolbar; it's in between the W and hyphen.
Since the article does not appear to be blatantly spam, I'll give you some general advice, with links to policy pages which you should read. If you don't understand a policy, you should seek clarification on the policy talk page.
Firstly, is DAXCON notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? As a corporation, it should satisfy the notability criteria for corporations. If DAXCON is notable, the article should establish its notability; if it isn't, the article may be nominated for deletion.
To make the article read less like an advertisement, ensure the article is written from a neutral point of view. As following NPOV can be difficult, several Wikipedians have prepared a tutorial which should answer any questions you have about the policy.
All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


The absence of consciousness

First, I am obliged to explain the meaning of the word "consciousness". I would not describe it a level of self-awareness, or a sense of subjectivity, but more as an awareness of the world. I have noticed a very strange phaenomenon among the "less" educated population. They do not have a logicall concept of reality in its full term. According to their character, social situation and group in society, they subsequently, mostly completely subconsciounsly decide which feelings, effects and even moments should be shut out, because there is a risk of a "mutilation" of their conception of reality, so to speak. I ask you for help, thank you.

Which article are you requesting feedback on? Factual questions should be asked at the reference desk. If you are simply ranting, do so on your own blog. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Herne Bay, Kent

Hi. I've been working on this article for quite a while and would appreciate any further recommendations for improvement. Epbr123 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that it's a GA nominee, and it looks great to me, my only suggestion would be to make the reference list multi-column. Excellent article! Wikipedia needs more editors like you --Kimontalk 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bradley effect

Since the issue may get some more media coverage over the next year or so, as Barack Obama's presidential campaign is watched, it seemed as though it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about the "Bradley effect". Any feedback other editors would care to offer is appreciated. Mwelch 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See "Arjen Robben" above for my disclaimer, but for my money this is an FA candidate. I would submit it to WP:PR. Only the very last sentence stuck me as at all potentially problematic--maybe needs a date (ie "as of 3/07") to insure against future obsolescence?--Turangalila (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Just made that change. Thanks for that feedback! Mwelch 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The article lacks images and external links. I understand that finding suitable images and external links may be difficult, given the topic, but please make an effort to find some to add to the article. Although it looks far from Featured Article status, if you add a couple of images and external links, Good Article status is a possibility. Before nominating the article for Good Article status, please review the Good Article criteria. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the ideas. At this point, anyway, official GA or FA status and all of that isn't a concern for me. I just want to make sure the article is legitimately a quality piece of work and to have my writing reviewed. Once I'm pleased in that arena (and yes, to that end, I'll go ahead with PR once I get time), then maybe I'll find myself interested in GA or FA or what have you. Nonetheless, far be it from me to just turn my back on other ideas for its improvement aside from the actual writing itself, so I'll indeed see what can be done about pictures and external links. Thanks! Mwelch 21:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Lowell, Massachusetts

This is my first article of any real length, and I was just curious all around about how it was written. It's been up for a few days and nobody but a bot has made changes. Other than the obvious flaw of almost no inline citations (I have a bibliography instead), I'm not sure what else needs to be seriously worked on. So basically, I'm looking for any and every change you can make to improve this article. CSZero 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good. Maybe you should capitalize only the characters in the headings (WP:MSH). An overview or a bigger lead would be nice. There can be a few subheadings. Cheers.--Shahab 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I made the first two changes already, I'll look into having some subheadings. CSZero 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Arjen Robben

I have been working on this article for some time and would like make it a good article. I understand that there's a long way to go but I'm not sure what I should do to improve it. This is an article about a football player, and some people have told me that a football player's page in general stands no chance for any good status, unless he is a remarkably well-known star (like David Beckham). Could anyone please kindly give me feedback on the current condition of the article. Any suggestion is very much appreciated. Thanks so much. S. Miyano 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still something of a newbie, but given the backlog I'll go ahead & comment. Overall the article seems very thorough, pretty balanced in tone & content, and fairly well sourced. Indeed, it actually seems like a lot of copy for a 23 year old--if anything it could use some trimming, particularly the "quotes" section, not all of which is sourced, plus some of the quotes seem like boilerplate. Also, heavy sourcing from a fansite might seem dubious to some, esp. if you could get the same stuff from official team sites or newspapers.
One other thing. it might just be my browser, but the "Netherlands Roster" box displays weirdly--runs off the screen & doesn't align with itself. Hope all that helps. --Turangalila (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me the feedback. I've removed all the unsourced quotes and will only insert them back in if i can find proper sources later. I replaced the fansite which was used as reference (thanks for telling me!). The quote section looks quite short now. About the template Netherlands Squad, it seems fine to me (I'm using Firefox). Also, I'm confused about your advice of trimming, because I always thought that I should make this article longer to make it reach GA status, do think it is currently long enough? S. Miyano 06:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As a rookie, I can't be much help wrt achieving GA or FA status; better advice might be available at Peer Review (which seems more active than this page anyway!).
The "trimming" advice is more a matter of personal stylistic preference: I like "tight" writing, at least in non-fiction, and I generally look to an encyclopedia for a concise intro, rather than an exhaustive treatment of the subject; also, I think brevity can sometimes help maintain NPOV. However, the reader is free to "skim", or to read only the infobox & intro, so I may be all wet here. I certainly don't speak for any community consensus, if there is one. WP:SIZE seems to leave alot to one's judgement, and perhaps erring on the side of thoroughness is the better bet. Certainly my comments here aren't notable for brevity :-). --Turangalila (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I'll need to "trim down" some text this weekend. ;)S. Miyano 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to post this a few days ago, I've shorten a few paragraphs and removed unnecessary phrases. I do hope the article looks better now. Arfan 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahbag

At Wikipedia:Peer review/Shahbag/archive2 it has been advised that a Civic Administration section should be added to the article, as well as information on geography, climate and such. How necessary is that, and how relevant? What other information is largely missing from the article, but needs to be there? I am trying to take the article to FA status. Aditya Kabir 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Engines List and Others

Mitsubishi has a couple v8s but I only see one. This is an example of where the engines list are lacking, is there someone who can contribute to this list and other engine list as they are all lacking details for past couple years, well im hoping a Volkswagon engine list will evently be added wich I beleave are made by Audi and alot more details to each engine listed would help aswell.

--Jay173 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So there's one V8 missing? Which one? --DeLarge 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This one in this article available on the Mitsubishi Raider its a 4.7 liter v8. http://research.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?logtype=6&section=summary&aff=freep&call=crp&makeid=34&year=2007&modelid=148 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the one you meant. That's a Chrysler (PowerTech) engine; see the wikilinks at Mitsubishi Raider. In fact, the whole truck's a badge engineering job. The powerplants at List of Mitsubishi engines are only those "produced by Mitsubishi Motors", not those bought in from outside manufacturers. VW's 2.0 L turbodiesel in the Mitsubishi Grandis isn't included for the same reason. Regards, --DeLarge 11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On that note i think the all engine catigorys can be more detailed from now on because they are lacking this.

09:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Sowers

Reposting request ... I'd really appreciate it if someone would take a look and give me some feedback. My initial request was archived without any comments. Thanks.

First request (from 13 March 2007): I've just posted a complete overhaul of this page. As it's my first WP contribution, I'd appreciate any and all feedback. Before I worked on it, there was virtually no sourcing and a good deal of what I didn't think to be encyclopedic content/language. Here's a link to the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Sowers&diff=114682815&oldid=111020744 Thanks in advance. --Sanfranman59 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm not intereested in sports at all, so I'm an objective observer. The article appears to be comprehensive. You might consider the use of the "as of" templates to indicate information that is current but that may change in the future. -Arch dude 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't aware of the "as of" templates. I'll take a look and see how they might be incorporated. --Sanfranman59 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance

I recently did a fairly major overhaul of the Renaissance (diff) article's structure, as well as rewriting and referencing several sections (35 refs now, up from 6).

I need to know whether the new structure makes sense, and what more can be done to complete this article. I'm hoping to get it to GA status (at least). Thanks.MAIS-talk-contr 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


I did some copyedits to make the language a bit crisper. Please review. Overall, I think your changes are a massive improvement. Thanks! -Arch dude 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looked at your copyedits, and agreed on all points - makes the prose that little bit sharper. Thanks! I will continue to try to improve this article.MAIS-talk-contr 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cobranet

I recently finished my first wiki article, and would like to make sure that I've done a decent job. The article is Cobranet. I think the intro might be a bit too short, but I'm not positive. Any other comments you might have would be appreciated. Snottywong 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your article looks good already. It is a credit to Wikipedia as it stands. Since I know little about the subject, I represent the "intellegent 12-year-old" to whom the intro should be addressed. In that regard, I think you need to succently address the following questions in the intro:

  • Who uses this? (theaters, home sound systems, auditoriums?)
  • What competes? (analog, wireless, whatever?)
  • Who competes? (technologies, companies?)

Going deeper, you might consider some network diagrams. You can use any tool you are comfortable with to make the diagram, and then upload it to wikicommons. Keep up the good work! -Arch dude 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good comments. I'll definitely add that stuff. Snottywong 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Microarchitecture Stub

Please review and let me know what is thought of my revisions to this stub. Here is the diff page for the revisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microarchitecture&diff=next&oldid=106982850

Thank you

Timmh

nice work dude add few pictures with it

You've done a great job expanding this stub. I did a bit of copyediting, but the prose is good on the whole. A few more references (at least one per paragraph preferably) and some diagrams could improve this article a lot.MAIS-talk-contr 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Highfield Church

Link to difference page for revisions: [18] Calineed 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the template fo a UK place, but I botched ti. I think you need to figure out how to refie this. we nnd a more detailed map, and we need the precise geolocatin of the church, but I do not know how to do this. -Arch dude 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I don't quite understand about the 'template for a UK place', isn't that just for cities? I don't know how to get a geolocation but I did add a satellite image of the Church. Calineed 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken Noguchi

I wrote this article last month, and it was featured in the "Did you know?" section on the front page, but only one person besides me edited it and that was to pipe a wikilink. I'd like feedback and a review of the page. In particular, I'd like people to check the prose (I sometimes write in a bit of a clumsy manner without realizing it) and the neutrality (I think it's neutral, but the point is whether other people do or not). Do not hesitate to point out formatting or other technical improvements either. Thanks! Leebo T/C 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article! I'm a rock climber and sometime environmentalist myself, so I was quite interested by it. Hadn't ever heard of Noguchi before. I would say the article is NPOV and flows smoothly. The one suggestion I have is that you not duplicate information about Noguchi's birthplace and birthdate, which currently appear in both the intro and the Bio section. I suggest removing that from the intro and leaving it in the Bio section. Moxfyre 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! You're right, the duplicated information doesn't read as well as it could if it was well-placed in a single location. I'll look at some other biographies to see how they avoid repeating information in the intro and body. Leebo T/C 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I combined the intro sentences on his childhood into the Bio section. The customary way on Wikipedia seems to be: list birth/death dates in the intro, and provide other info about childhood in a biographical section. See George Washington or Mustafa Kemal or Bill Clinton, for example. MOXFYRE (contrib) 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for the help. Leebo T/C 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sleepytime Trio

I have made an article on the emo band sleepytime trio and would like help, constructive criticism, comment, etc. Doody 09 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the first place to start would be finding some sources, because the article currently has no citations to allow the reader to verify the information. For instance, the sentence "Many have described Sleepytime Trio's style as..." who are the people describing them this way? How many is many? It's a good start for a music stub, but with some sources, others could help research the band too. If you can find some reviews, interviews, etc., I could help you format them so they appear properly in the article. Leebo T/C 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Daxcon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daxcon

I was hopingto get some feedback on the layout of my article. The reason that I care about my layout is that it is a company article and feel that it should follow a certain layout. Also, I was wondering if there were any other specific pages to where I could link my article or if I need to add a section to make the article more wikipedia oriented.

It doesn't appear that the layout is a problem, other than it reads like an advertisement. The commercial tone needs to be stripped out (for example, the See also section is merely a list of clients), and the article needs to establish what makes it worth including. For example, have they won industry awards, or are they mentioned in independent media - Tiswas(t/c) 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Frauentausch

Hello!
I am new here, I come from the German Wikipedia and my English is not so good …
Yesterday I created the article Frauentausch. I ask you for reading and correcting the article. I hope that there are not so many mistakes. Thanks for reading and correcting! --Despairing 11:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the vocab & grammar, the article appears to be crufty - Ideally, the article would only need to highlight what makes the German franchise of Wife Swap unique. There is no need to list every detail of the show's format. - Tiswas(t/c) 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747

Hello everyone,

I have made some major edits to the above article over the past 2 days, which refers to Iran's nuclear programme.

Could you please tell me:

1. if it is NPOV enough?

2. If You think I have omitted any material fact.

Thanks in advance for your time and feedback.

SSZ 02:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There seem to be too many one-paragraph sections, making the Table of Contents longer than is needed. Could these be consolidated into fewer sections? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback RJH. I did the change as per your remarks.SSZ 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The intro feels a bit long and unwieldy to me. Perhaps some of it could be moved into a section called "Background for current crisis" or something to that effect? Otherwise it's an excellent article, clearly well-sourced and well-researched. In terms of NPOV, I think it's quite good. I might add some quotes of Iranian leaders (such as Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe Israel off the map, or to strike US interests) as explanation of why many western countries believe Iran has aggressive, military goals for its nuclear program. MOXFYRE (contrib) 18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback MOXFYRE. Points well taken. I have removed some background information and placed it at the end of the article in a separate sub-section. I also added some lines to the introduction from Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Also, I grouped the information about Iran and Israel in one new sub-section, and finally, added two extra mentions about the beligerant Iranian rhetoric. SSZ 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Itanium: a merge and complete rewrite

For historical reasons, The articles relating to the Intel Itanium are in a state of complete disarray. The main articles are IA-64, Itanium, and Itanium 2. I have proposed a merger of these articles, and I intend to complete the merger/rewrite on 16 April. My proposed new article is currently at User:Arch dude/Workspace, and I intend to move it to Itanium. Itanium is a really big deal in the computer industry. Is proponents assert that it will eventually dominate an industry that accounts for a significant percentage of the world's economy.

Please comment on the following:

  • lead paragraph: If you are not a computer person, does this make sense?
  • sales forecast chart: I contributed this to wiki commons, so I can change it. Does it convey the correct information? The intent is to convey the extreme discrepancy between the original published expectations and the current reality, which I believe is central to the Itanium story. Does the chart convey this? Is this actually relevant?
  • Architecture: Is there enough context here?
  • Relevance: Is it clear that Itanium is important?
  • POV: Many in the industry, including me, think that Itanium is an unmidigated disaster. The existing articles include a great deal of PR from the Itanium marketing community. Have I gone too far in the other direction?
  • Completeness: have I failed to preserve relevant information from the three "merged" articles?
  • Citations: most citations are to the web-based trade press. too many? too few? too biased?

Thanks.-Arch dude 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(09:44, 9 April 2007 24.113.110.55) added:

Itanium and itanium 2 are two separate itianium generations of processers.
Yes, they are. However, Itanium is also a brand used universally in the industry to identify both generations and to Identify the entire project and its history. The new article is about the brand, and therefore includes both processor families. Incidentaly, the Itanium 2 family has multiple generations. -Arch dude 15:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I think a combined article would be good. A few suggestions: (1) There are a pair of excedingly long paragraphs in this article. They should be split up for ease of reading. (2) At the other extreme, there are several one-paragraph sections. These should either be merged to shorten the ToC, or expanded with more information. (3) There are several one-sentence paragraphs. Can these be merged or expanded? — RJH (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have edited the proposed article. Please take another look if you have time. I'm not completely sure what you mean by " paragraph", so I made edits to reduce the TOC, split the biggest two true paragraphs, and consolidate the single-sentence paragraphs. Some single-sentence paragraphs are fairly fundamental, however. Do you have an opinion on the timeline?I could not find a way to consolidate it into the rest of the article. -Arch dude 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One page could have first genration and then the second generation listed and if theres ever a third it can be listed like that aswell, rather than having to look at two seprate articals and just because they share a similer itanium name doesnt make them even close they just share some of the ia64 instruction set. This is what make the 386,pentium4 and intel core2 totaly diffrent processers for example.

Good article! Very very thorough and I learned a lot that I didn't know although I'm a big hardware geek. A couple of things about the history section: how do you know exactly what HP's goals and actions were when initially developing the architecture? Also, the "sales forecast" graph lacks units for the Y axis... millions of dollars, millions of units sold? Otherwise, so far so good... no other problems except for a few typos. MOXFYRE (contrib) 05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks four your inputs. My spelling is horrible, so I will re-check, but a few will gte through anyway. HP stated its goals in its "History" paper: I will change the references so thta each reference is exact. Perhaps I can find and use direct quotes. -Arch dude 15:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. I updated the article in he main wikispace. -Arch dude 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Small suggestion: I'd move the Itanium logo from the top left corner. At screen resolutions above about 1232 pixels it causes the table of contents to be indented, and such image layouts in the lead are deprecated at the WP Guide to layout (Images, fourth paragraph). --DeLarge 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I struggled a lot with the logo placement and decided that the current location is the least bad. If I pu it on the right, the infobox gets pushed down and several other bad things begin to happen. Please try a few things to see if you can find a better layout. If you find one you like, then change the article: I will not revert you. -Arch dude 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Very nice work, ArchDude. The only thing I worry about is the merge of Itanium 2. The old article seemed to present some architectural details in a different and possibly more thorough way (particularly the detailed description of floating-point architecture). Do you believe that the combined article contains all the useful info from Itanium 2? MOXFYRE (contrib) 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I may have over-reacted here. In the old Itanium 2, the rest of the architecture was essentially ignored, leaving only the floating-point stuff, and almost all of the floating-point stuff was not particluarly specific to Itanium (with the exception of the 80-bit arithmetic and the 82-bits registers.) the truly important parts are : 128 registers, 2 FMACs. This is what gives Itanium its killer SPECfp numbers. Note that the stuff about using the "graphics" ionstructions to get better floating-point performance is bogus: It's true for all modern architectures but this is not the way the industry defines "FLOP." If I did over-react, please edit the article, or propose wording on its talk page and we can discuss it. However, I have recently found a trove of better references: we may want to substantially expand the architecture section and split it back out. (I'm now going to re-read the old article in light of your comment.) Thanks again for your comments. -Arch dude 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Best Bet

The Best Bet is a Singaporean film about the perils of gambling. I wrote this article on 31 March and have just nominated it for DYK. As the creator of RFF, surely I should benefit from it, by receiving feedback that would help me improve this article, so that the DYK nomination will be successful and the article will receive a B-class rating (and possibly GA status in future)?

Two major concerns:

  • Has my prose improved? I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed due to choppy prose.
  • In Singapore, we use the term "strike" to refer to a lottery win (whether 4D or TOTO). So we'd say "I hope I strike 4D" or "If my number strikes, I'll give you a treat". Since this term is not used in other countries, I have instead used the words "win" and "[the number] came out", but it sounds just...weird. Should I use the Singaporean term "strike", or stick with terms familiar to international readers?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

'Strike is used in the USA in a simmilar manner to mean "win" or "find," as in the phrases "strike it rich," "gold strike," and "he struck oil." You might consider a small stub article on this usage of the word strike. Yes, wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is one of many cases where a small disambiguation article is the best solution to the problem. -Arch dude 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a concise explanation in the article itself; that tends to be preferable to being forced to open another article just to find a definition. Incidentally, the term is not widely used in that context in Britain, where strike is something that employees might do. Adrian M. H. 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Video blog

Video blog is a blog that contains regular video posts and is usually accompanied by an RSS feed with media enclosures. (i.e. a video podcast) Before I began editing the article, it was mostly OR from videobloggers who have an attachment to the article. I gradually (over the last 6 or so months) removed a lot of non notable content, indiscriminate links, and unsourced content after requesting citations. The article is currently undergoing an revert war between the cleaned up version and the original version (from about 6 months ago). Cleaned up version, Original Version, Difference Between Versions See the talk page for a summary of my changes and the current discussion.Pdelongchamp 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If a revert war is in progress, it might be more appropriate to request a 3rd opinion. Adrian M. H. 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Destination ImagiNation

A global problem-solving competition. I've done some work improving, want to know what should be done next. -AtionSong 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made some minor edits to the article and left feedback at User talk:AtionSong. Adrian M. H. 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

SQL NULL

We just completely rewrote an article stub on SQL Null, and would like to get feedback on it. Any and all feedback appreciated. Particularly we're looking for advice on style, content, citation, NPOV, etc. All the things that make a good article good. Old Article here: Old SQL NULL article, Current Article here: SQL NULL. ThanksSqlPac 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Another computer article, which is good. However because it's computer related, and not everyone understands it, you may want to put some brief introduction on what SQL is, why would we need NULL and other basic stuff like that. Try WP:LEAD to get the main idea about the lead section. Also congratulations for the improvement, I can see that you guys have done a lot. Another thing I want to suggest is to improve the prose. Now the article looks like bunch of sentences put together without a nice prose. Also try to wikify the article, means that "lots of words", making the article thicker. The tables and syntaxes (or whatever people called it :P) are very good and appropriate. Try to put some pictures, maybe screenshots or anything so the article looks nicer. The last thing is, citation goes after punctuation. Good luck - Imoeng 00:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! We've added a couple of sentences describing what SQL is, with a link to the SQL article. I also moved the references outside the punctuation marks. I think we discuss why you would need NULL (to represent "missing information and inapplicable information", per Codd's definitions) in the lead. I'm not sure what we could do in terms of screenshots. Basically all that could be done (as far as I can tell) would be to show the result of a query that displayed a bunch of NULLs in the result set. Not sure if that would be add much value to the article though. What do you think? I'm definitely more of a technical guy than an artistic type, and I tend to think in terms of getting maximum information across as efficiently as possible. If you have any specific suggestions about improving the prose, I could definitely use (and would appreciate) it! Thanks! SqlPac 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Main Line

This is an older article (first created in 2004), but it has never been in particularly good shape. Several dozen other articles link to this article, so the topic has some importance. The subject is a geographic area in the western suburbs of Philadelphia. One of the problems, probably, with this topic is that in the Philadelphia area, the Main Line is frequently considered as a "prestige" address in comparison to some other areas; this results in heated debate over which geographic areas should properly be included as part of the Main Line. Spikebrennan 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Spikebrennan, a good article there. It's got good headers and plenty of external links, as well as access to commons. And maybe you can get one or two pictures from commons and put it there so we can see them easily. Moreover because it's a collection of towns, with many important people, we'd like to see some pictures. The other very important thing is references, as well as inline citations. You've been here quite awhile so I assume you have understood how to use them. Try read WP:CITE and you can use WP:CITET to help you. In terms of the content, you may want to explain why this area is so special, why there are many notable people live there and so forth. Also try to avoid lists and put more paragraphs to make the article looks more encyclopedic. Good luck - Imoeng 09:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rob.bastholm/Smartwool

I've been providing some guidance to User:Rob.bastholm to help improve this article from its former CSD status to at least a legitimate corporate stub that can be moved to the Main namespace. For a new editor, he has done an admirable job in looking for WP:RS to the point where this is no longer a speedy candidate. If any other editors can provide any more information, that would be helpful. Also, while I would have no qualms about moving the article to the Main namespace right now, agreement from others would definitely help, so please do let him (and me!) know. --Kinu t/c 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Kinu, you can always move it to the mainspace, as long as you provide references and inline citations. If it has avoided from being speedied, then it should be fine on the mainspace. With some researches, you, and Rob can put more information. So, add the stub template, add more references (reliable ones) and move it to the mainspace. Good luck - Imoeng 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mindphobia

how can this page be linked to other pages eg. mental health, mental illness, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s. 15), discrimination and disability?

You can add a new section called "See also", which can contain some internal links, just like you have mentioned above. Considering the article is up for speedy deletion, you may want to research some more while providing references and inline citations. See WP:CITE for more details. Good luck with it! - Imoeng 09:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines Flight 261

I'm new to editing at wikipedia, and trying to learn the ropes. I've been fairly "bold" with this article, and have made substantial changes to its organization and content. I feel the middle section, "Analysis" still needs to be completely re-written, but am happy for now with the first section, "The accident flight". Please let me know if you think I'm doing a good job or not, especially with how I've used citations...I'm trying not to overdo them, but it might be considered inadequate. Thanks! Lipsticked Pig 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, good on you for being italic, and bold. Maybe the most important thing for me to tell you is to consider using the "show preview" button, so you don't have to click save so many times. It's just good to use that :). Also good on you for using inline citation, which probably the most important thing. And no, you didn't overdo them, in fact, plenty more would be desirable. Try comparing it to other related articles, or articles with the same length. Most of them would have 40-60 inline citations. With a bit of research, you'll be able to do it easily. I like your article structure, above all, because you separated between the accident and the investigation, which is clearly better. And again, I suggest you to look at some aircrash-related articles, so you can get the idea. Last thing, some pictures may help as well. Good luck - Imoeng 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback; much appreciated! Lipsticked Pig 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is my edit not there?

I added a link to an article and when I pulled it up just now it wasn't displayed, but it is still in the edit page. Did I do it wrong?

The article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats. The link is to a book written by my dad on the history of the critical mass lab there. He was a scientist there for the entire existence of the lab. The book was written under government contract.

You may want to ask that at the help desk. Good luck - Imoeng 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ketchup Effect

I would like to have this article reassessed, while I dont believe it's a stub anymore, i have added a few things that i feel that it makes it even better. The language may need to be changed also.

Hello there. Please sign your edit with ~~~~. Good start, with infobox and picture, you've got the basic things of an article. But I'm afraid you missed the most important thing, references. I believe you wrote the article because you have seen the movie (pardon me if I'm wrong), and that's what you should avoid, per original research policy. Try to avoid writing an article from your own perspective or ideas, and search for some information, from the net, or books, preferably. From there, you can add references and citations, as written on citing policy. Since it's a movie-related article, you may want to add more info than just the synopsis, like, the making of the movie, reception, criticism and so forth. There must be plenty information about those things. The last thing is your writing style. I suggest you to split the synopsis section into paragraphs, just for the sake of readers. It would be better to do that than cramping everything on a paragraph. Also try to avoid lists because paragraphs of words are just more encyclopedic. Good luck with that! After you put some references, maybe you can take the stub template off. Have a good day - Imoeng 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

STS-51-L Mission timeline

Hi there! I've recently started work on this detailed timeline of mission STS-51-L (the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster), and I assume it comes under the definition of a list. I'd very much like to get it to featued status, but as I have never penned a Wikipedia list before, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback with advice as to what I need to do to improve it. Thanking you in advance, Colds7ream 13:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colds7ream. You did all those by yourself? That's really cool, congratulations on that. I reckon it is not a list, because a featured list would be a list, with different points on it. In this case, it's more like, a timeline, or a story, if you wish. For some example of lists, take a look at here and here. So now you can focus to featured article. The good things about the article is that you have written a very detailed timeline of the mission, both in paragraph and table form. The pictures are good too. However you've missed the most important thing, which is references and citations. I saw a couple of inline citations, which is good, but to pass FA, you would need plenty more. Generally speaking, in this kind of articles, you will need about 30 - 50 inline citations, but that's generally speaking. And of course, references, where you can put a list of general references that you used. I suggest you to put "See also" and "External links" section at the bottom of the article, where you can put some internal and external links. Well that's all about it, you may want to submit it to peer review for a more detailed review after you satisfy all the above. Good luck - Imoeng 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that - i'll start on some changes this afternoon. Yes, I know I need references - i've got a list ready to go; its just that I didn't know what arrangement lists took - as its not a list, I can get going (I've already got Shuttle-Mir Program to FA, so I have no fear of references! :-D) Thanks again! Colds7ream 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lecrae and FLAME

Today I found these two articles and saw that they were on the articles for deletion category so I made the obvious clarity edits, updated information, and added references to the two articles. I was wondering what other suggestions there were for fixing the articles so that they are not deleted. Also I was wondering if it is NPOV enough and if not then what would you edit to make it more NPOV. What else might I add to show the notability of the articles and the artists that they represent. God Bless, Professor Davies 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello professor. For the Lecrae article, I did find some NPOV statements, like "Lecrae Moore is a Christian rap artist from Reach Records who has devoted his career to preaching the Gospel through his music." The statement is not neutral because there is no source saying that. So the reviewer might assume that the writers have taken an assumption. Also "LeCrae is devoting his life to glorifying God in everything that he does, in word, life, and thought. Understanding that Christians live as regenerate (born again) people in an unregenerate (not born again) world, he knows the odds are against him. With no ambitions of being the next big thing or dreams of fame and wealth, LeCrae simply wants to point listeners in the direction of the Cross". Remember one thing though, try to avoid getting information from the related parties. In this case, the record label, because they are trying to sell. Instead, look for some third parties resources.
The flame article is fine, although you may want to unbold some bolded phrases. The only thing that should be bold is the first word in the lead section (flame). Good luck with that! Imoeng 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Muchos Gracias, thank you very much I will edit those phrases and try to get third party references. God Bless, Professor Davies 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Skank (band)

I have translated text from the Portuguese language WP, added more information and references. Macgreco 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 storms in Vancouver, Canada

Hi. I made some major edits to the article a few months ago, and now it has been tagged repeatedly. I want to eventually improve it, but I want to know what this article lacks the most. Please tell me the major things this article needs, like sources, wikify, tone, etc. I could possibly find sources, and will try to wikify. Does wikifying indicate adding links, or is it more than that? Also, what is an easy way to change the tone? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 21:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick copyedit to add links. I also changed the structure of hte first sentence into a more "correct" form. I added a single reference to give you a template to work from: You may wish to remove my reference after you find better ones. I modified a sentence to remove the term "knock-on": I suspect that this term is Canadian or regional. I tried to link ot "Aleutian Low" but we do not have an article: either create a stub article for the term, add a reference to the term, or define it in place. I did not remove the tags, but I think you can remove the "wikify" tag after you make another pass, and remofe the "references" tags after you add one or two good references. -Arch dude 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Crystal field theory

I have done a fair bit editing on the page and would like to know what else I could improve or change. I changed from the image formating (in addition to adding one) and has a result had to change some of the content as well.Furthermore more, it appears that the image for the Crystal Field Stablisation Energy section disagrees somewhat with the image Here's the diff page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_field_theory&diff=126918701&oldid=119466862

I am also responsible for the eight intermediate edits. --YanA 06:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made some more edits. The link above has been updated.--YanA 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I no longer feel that it is necessary. --YanA 06:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comet McNaught

Hi. I made this article several months ago, and now I am requesting feedback. It has mostly been edited by other users. The talkpage states it is mostly still at Start-class, and haven't been much improved since. I want to know what the article still lacks, so someone could make it better. What does it need: more info, pov, length, sources, images, reports, interestingness, or something else? I know this is a very bright and notable object, so what needs to be improved? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Current status" section needs to be removed and replaced with a description of the outbound trajectory and eventual fate. This will help convert the "current events" style into the proper "encyclopedic" style. Re-read the article and ask yourself if it will be useful in ten years. -Arch dude 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The orbital parameters don't appear to match what is on the JPL site[19] nor the referenced ephemerides site.[20] The text doesn't even mention that this comet likely has a parabolic orbit, and so will not be returning. There is an ESO news release that had some scientific results.[21] — RJH (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Natural organic matter

Hello all! I just posted a new article disscussing Natural organic matter. I am just curious if there are specific sections I should expand on more. I welcome all feedback and opinions. Thank you for your time and efforts.

1013-alex 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Flowers in the Attic and Flowers in the Attic (movie)

I made some changes to the the article covering the book by V.C. Andrews and created another one focusing one the movie based on the book. I would like some feedbak on whether or not my changes are more in keeping with the standards of Wikipedia and if there's more that should be done.

Jahunta07 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BC Express (sternwheeler)

Hi, I wrote BC Express sternwheeler and several other ship articles of that nature including a couple larger index type articles. I thought I'd get someone to look at this one and see how it can be improved as it is one of my favorites. I'd like to be made aware of any mistakes I'm making now, rather than repeating them over and over again. Thanks for your time.CindyBo 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is already a credit to Wikipedia. Thanks for writing it. I enjoyed reading it. However, it is not yet ready for "good article" status. first and foremost, you need inline citations. This is sort of silly in this case given the book references you cite, but the consensus that has evolved over the last two years is that in-line citation is needed. I reccomend that you use the "ref" syntax with a "cite book" template. Where a particular paragraph is suppoirted by a chapter in a book, just put one cite on the end of the last sentence in the paragraph.
  • You use a lot of terms that you do not explain. Sure, you know what they mean, and a reader could do some extra work to find them, but it's a whole lot better if you do it first. A trivial example: sternwheeler.
  • Change the first sentence to say: The BC Express was a stern wheel paddle steamer (sternwheeler) that operated on the Fraser River in British Columbia, Canada, from 1912 to 1919. Other undefined terms are steel end and head of navigation.
  • With a long article like this, the introductory section needs to be longer. It should briefly sularize the whole article. Pretend that your reader is a bored but inquisitive and intelligent 12-year-old who found your article by clicking on the "random article" link.Give the reader a succinct overview. The lead-in should also cater to the desperate high-school or college student who need to determine very quickly whether or not to read the rest of the article.
If you have not done so already, please review the WP:GA criteria. GA is a relativel low threshold. After you get to GA, I think you should go for FA. -Arch dude 01:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Humboldt State University

I have been working on the Humboldt State University article for a little bit now, struggling with what kind of content should go into the article of a small public university. A main problem I have is a lack of sources about the university. I have added little content, mostly correcting and changing the format. I added the History section, however. Any comments would be helpful, especially about the scope of the article. abexy 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You should add references to the statistics section like the college entrance exams, etc. Royalbroil 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

William Bengen

Hi:

This page is my attempt at giving credit to William Bengen for his research on retirement planning. I am relatively new to editing, and wanted feedback in 2 areas. 1. Since this is sort of a biography of a living person, did I violate any etiquette 2. Is it NPOV? I tried to write it as such, but don't know if it came out objective. Any suggestions welcome and I will try to follow up on them.

Thanks, Ramnarasimhan 16:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Schloss Einstein

For a few minutes I created the article Schloss Einstein. Because my English is not so good, I ask you for reading and improving. Thanks. --Despairing 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rise of nationalism in Europe

I have been working on this article recently, and I was wondering if it can be included as part of a history series on wikipedia? I am new to wikipedia so any advice on this would be great. Thanks TerritorialWaters 10:13 (UTC) 6 May 2007.

Responded at user's talk page. Adrian M. H. 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fiber-optic communication

I created this article a while back, but it hasn't developed much. I was hoping for some suggestions for improvement- specifically how it might be made more relevant to the average reader. Possibly better tie-ins with other articles or specific suggestions for word-choice problems? Thanks! johnpseudo 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did a cursory read-through. This is a promising article, but it needs a bit of work.
  • The introductory section is too short for such a long and broad article
  • The article needs many more references
  • We need at least a short paragraph on very short fiber (e.g., TOSLINK) if only to keep people from adding this stuff to this article when it does not belong here.
  • We probably need further cross-linking with the other articles on this subject. This article would end up as the "lead" or "overview" article for the others.
  • You may want to mention OC-768 (i.e., 40Gbps) and polarization dispersion, which are teh leading-edge spedd and its new limitation.
  • FTTH is finally actually happening. (e.g., Verizon FIOS.)
  • (shameless pitch:) link to core router.
-Arch dude 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fairy painting

I am especially looking for a standard to apply to determine which modern artists (and external links) might warrant inclusion -- the article periodically sprouts new ones (I am aware that the modern revival section currently lacks sourcing). Also, suggestions on how to appropriately expand of the lede and commentary as to whether the artwork depicted is adequately representative would be appreciated. I would like to start this on the long road toward GA and FA. Serpent's Choice 07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge

I first found this article as a very small stub which basically stated that it was a refuge and where it was located in Florida. For an English project, I was asked to radically expand the article and find many sources to back up the claims/facts in the article. I am fairly new to this Wikipedia thing. I would like specific help with the following:

  • What do I need to do to make the article more appealing?
  • What do I need to do to make the article be considered a "Featured" or "Good" article?

Thanks for any help/comments/concerns... 1013-andy 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it could be a WP:GA candidate and probably without much further work. The GA reviewer – or a good one at least – will tell you what needs to be improved to meet their expectations. GA reviewers are encouraged to work to quite high standards. You need to sort the ref format, though: get rid of the plain links and the chevrons around them, and use the examples at WP:CITET to guide you. Move the first picture, because the infobox must go there. Remove the external links from the photo gallery – external links do not belong in body text – and place the link to Clay Degayner's Photo Album Slideshow in the External Links section, unless it mostly duplicates those gallery shots? If you haven't seen them already, peruse the many pages that make up the Manual of Style, but I don't think that you have any major issues of that nature. Again, any such issues will be raised by a GA reviewer. Good effort! Adrian M. H. 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge

Hey, I'm new to wikipedia and recently had an assignment for my english class to expand an article. I was just wondering if anyone had any advice to improve the article in any way, shape, or form. I would appreciate any help. Thanks. 1013-Jeff 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Full Twisting Layout

full twisting layout
i started this article, and its just a stub, and i can't think of anything to add, anyone have any ideas. Maddiekate

References to your sources would be a significant addition, in order that the material may be verified. You may know the facts, but most readers – me included – will not and that is one of a number of reasons why attribution is such a vital policy. The article left me wondering where, when and from whom this manouvre originated. And how is it similar to a piked full twist? What is its value or significance in terms of a competition routine? It needs more context in the lead section and the tone of the whole article is too instructional, as if it has been taken from a manual. It is uncategorised and no other articles link to it. It might benefit from an image of someone performing the manouvre as well. Adrian M. H. 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester

I'm trying to get this to GA status. Recommendations for improvement would be appreciated. Epbr123 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whitstable

I'm trying to get this to GA status. Recommendations for improvement would be appreciated. Epbr123 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Westgate-on-Sea

I'm trying to get this to GA status. Recommendations for improvement would be appreciated. Epbr123 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Birchington-on-Sea

I'm trying to get this to GA status. Recommendations for improvement would be appreciated. Epbr123 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Polska (dance)

I did a major revision of this page. Will appreciate feedback on how to give it a better structure--that is, break it into different entries, add headings, or other suggestion on how to make it better fit the wikipedia model. Cpgruber 22:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • They certainly would. It must verifiable, otherwise it can be taken to be OR. Reference your sources with footnotes. I have given the article some much-needed cleanup work, which is described in detail in my edit summary. I have left specific comments for you within the text; you can remove these once you have read them. Another issue that struck me was the essay-like and, at times, informal tone. The writing style is a little too prosaic and not sufficiently encyclopædic. You ought to revise your use of punctuation marks as well. For example, you put the first instances of dance names into quote marks, rather than italicising them. There was a lack of capitalisation as well, though some instances of this may be correct, according to the specifics of how a particular proper noun is commonly written. Adrian M. H. 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Code of Dinotopia

Hi. I recently created this article. However, a few days after I added a second edit, Thehedgehog (talk · contribs) reverted it, stating it was false, and that it was a new edit. However, after checking his/her contribs, it turns out that the user has been on wiki longer than I have, but have made far less edits. In fact, the user's only edit in May 2007 was to revert this edit. How, and why? I sent that user a comment, questioning about his/her recent revert. Most likely, this user either clicked on Random article, or he/she visited another article, clicking individual links until that user arrived at that one. Unfortuneately, since that user rarely makes a lot of edits, I'm not sure he/she will reply anytime soon, which is why I am adding this comment here. If this is not the place to put this comment, please tell me where else, if anywhere, I could put it, such as the Help Desk, etc. Anyway, what should I do? With that user not likely to reply anytime soon, I'm not sure what I could do. Why do I think his/her revert was unjustified? Please see the comment on that user's talkpage, the only comment after "welcome". Also, what else should I do (when I have time) to improve that page? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The first part of your question should have been placed at either the HD or the NCH, but as it is a simple one, I'll answer it here. Basically, as with all such things, if you can verify the claim with a reliable source, then re-insert it in a suitably revised form. The burden of attribution is always on the editor who makes the claim, not those who read it or choose to remove it per the above policy. I note that you have only provided general sources; they are not references and so should not be classed as such.
With regard to improving the article, there is a lot that you should do and a lot more that you can do in addition to that.
  • For one thing, it lacks context. I mean, what is Dinotopia? A link to the main article is not enough to provide the necessary context and inform the reader. See WP:LEAD, which is one small part of the Manual of Style.
  • Why is it notable? You have provided only a primary first-party source, which fails to demonstrate notability and is not the best type of source. Where are you secondary sources? See those links above, plus WP:ATT (related to WP:V) and WP:REF. Being a small part of a larger subject is not necessarily enough to fulfill notability.
  • If you don't have enough material to expand the article sufficiently, consider the possibility of a merge.
  • Categorise it.
Adrian M. H. 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Although "total number of edits" can be a good indicator of someone's familarity with wiki, it is not always the case.  ;) I've responded to your comment in my talkback already, but just to summarize -- based on what I've read in the books, I felt your recent addition was taking a character's offhand comment as truth, and using that to fill in the final part of the Dinotopia code. From all that I've read of the books, the final code has never been found.
As for improvements, again, as I mentioned in my comment, perhaps quoting one or two of the codes to show the aim of the utopian society of Dinotopia, and discussing this purpose of the codes would help. Perhaps even a small paragraph mentioning the codes in other media, such as the TV series which edited the codes slightly and actually "found" the final code in the TV canon. Although as Adrian above noted, perhaps the code article would be better if merged in the main article. (I'm a fan of Dinotopia myself, so I'm for more informative articles on the works, but the Dinotopia universe, and more specifically the laws, don't have the same amount of fictional beef as say, Star Trek's section). -- Thehedgehog 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi. The revert was resolved on that user's talkpage, and thanks for the help, but I'm not sure if I should post as the newcomer's help place because I've been on wiki for more than 7 months. Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversible reaction (chemistry)

The article Reversible reaction contains the following statement, which is utter rubbish.

"Irreversible reactions are often called "spontaneous" or "favorable". These reactions are usually entropically driven, as opposed to thermodynamically driven. In an irreversible reaction, there is generally a great increase in entropy."

However, before editing this out I need some information. In what context is the concept of a reversible reaction used? Clearly the context here is different from the thermodynamic one, as in Reversible process (thermodynamics).

The other difficulty I have with this idea is that all chemical reactions are equilibria. This follows directly from the relationship (at constant pressure)

ΔGθ = − RTlnK

Whatever the value of ΔGθ there is a corresponding equilibrium constant. Under standard conditions, the cases are

  1. ΔGθ is large and negative: the reaction "goes to completion", kinetics permitting.
  2. The absolute value of ΔGθ is less than about 20 kJ mol-1: the reaction will go to equilibrium, kinetics permitting.
  3. ΔGθ is large and positive: the reaction "does not go".

Is there a real difference between a reaction which is "reversible" and one that goes to an equilibrium mixture?

Petergans 10:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The best way I can explain this is to have you forget the math for a moment. A reversable reaction is one that obeys LeChatelier's Principle, while a non-reversable one does not. That is, a reversable reaction can be forced one way or the other by introducing relatively small changes to the system. An irreversable reaction will go to completion REGARDLESS of the conditions the reaction occurs at. Consider the following two reactions:
  1. H2CO3 <-----> H2O + CO2
  2. CH4 + 3O2 ----> 2H2O + CO2
AT first they look very similar, yet the first is reversable, while the second isn't. Think about these as real world processes.
  1. The first is the dissociation of Carbonic Acid. In solution, carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. Whether this reaction moves to the right or left is completely at the whim of small changes to its conditions. Relative concentrations, pH, pressure over the surface of the water, and temperature all have profound effects on the reaction. This precarious equilibrium, and the reversable nature of the reaction, makes it very useful in many applications. For one, it is the vital component of gas exchange in your lungs. By carefully controlling this equilibrium (see Homeostasis) your body is able to reliably eliminate Carbon Dioxide from your blood. Also, consider a can of soda. If left closed, pressure builds, forcing the equilibrium to the left. Essentially, the pressure is high enough so that the reaction is ALL Carbonic Acid, and NO carbon dioxide. Leave the can open, and the Carbon Dioxide literally drifts away, driving the equilibrium to the right, until it goes to near completion to the right. At this state, it is ALL Carbon Dioxide, and NO Carbonic Acid. (CO2 concentration in the air is so low that it is essentially nil as far as this reaction is concerned). The reaction goes essentially to completion (in each case, no equilibrium) but is fully reversible, since by making relatively minor changes to conditions, it can be forced one way or the other. These changes can be effected WITHOUT an input of external energy, and thus are spontaneous and reversible.
  2. The second is the combustion of methane. Regardless of the ambient temperature, pressure, pH, or concentrations involved, once you start the reaction (give it a spark to overcome the activation energy) it goes all the way to completion at the right, and NO amount of change to the conditions will EVER get Carbon Dioxide and Water to spontaneously form Methane and Oxygen. Thus, the process is irreversable.
I hope that clears things up a bit. Your mathematical analysis using Gibbs Law is correct, but it obfuscates the real nature of reversability.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BeetlesMod request for feedback

Thanks in advance for any feedback about my first Wiki, BeetlesMod. It's intended to replace my outdated static HowTo web page, BeetleFart's Admin Mod for CS:Source.

I've added References per the Wiki style guide, citing authoritative sources for this subject matter. I haven't filled out the detail, yet, pending your feedback.

Is this a reasonable subject for Wikipedia? What else (besides content) is missing from my first Wiki?

Thanks.
Rabid—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabid QODA (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 May 2007.

Just to be clear; this is not a Wiki, but an article that is part of a Wiki. Wikipedia, more than any other Wiki, exists solely as an encyclopædia and it is not a place for instructional guides. Your article reads like an instructional guide and, crucially, it fails to establish notability. Where are the third party sources? The magazine, newspaper and website editorial that writes about this subject in a non-trivial fashion. Adrian M. H. 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Adrian. I'll take another route to publish my instructional guide. Rabid QODA 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm glad that didn't put you off. Off the top of my head, I don't know of a wiki that would be suitable, but it is virtually certain that there is one somewhere. There are a lot of wikis for all kinds of content and gaming must be high on the popularity list. For convenience, would you mind placing {{db-author}} at the top of the article? That will let admins know that you don't want the article to remain, since it's probably a candidate for deletion. Thanks, and good luck with your guide. Adrian M. H. 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I added two unique and reputable third-party references to my article, which, in my opinion, establishes notability. I also removed the instructional text, and will update the article to include a link to a site where instructional text will be available. Rabid QODA 05:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
BeetlesMod was speedily deleted by Marasmusine. Rabid QODA 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid Too

I Not Stupid Too is Singapore's all-time second-highest grossing film. It is a sequel of the famous satirical comedy I Not Stupid, which prompted reforms in the Singapore education system.

I have spent two months on this article, and have finally finished it today. As the creator of the RFF process, surely I should be allowed to benefit from it, by getting feedback on an article I have rewritten?

Please give me general feedback and suggestions for improving the article, and assess its GA potential.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Places in the Philippines

I am trying to get certain articles on the Philippines up to featured article status. I compared the article of Metro Manila to featured articles on other cities around the world and I found out some criteria and information missing:

  • A picture of a well-known landmark or the downtown area.
  • Time zone
  • Area code
  • A climate graph for the Geography and Climate section would be much appreciated.
  • Communications and Media
  • Health and Public Safety
  • External links to official government websites

Also, I've been looking at other articles on places in the Philippines which I hope would reach featured status, these can be found on my page under "Hitlist". If anyone knows how we can get these articles to featured status, or added information, please tell me. Eternal dragon 09:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This sort of general request might be better at EA. RFF is intended to provide feedback about your work on a specific article. As a strategy, I suggest that you tackle one article at a time in order to focus your efforts. You have made a good start by comparing an article against its most relevant benchmarks. Adrian M. H. 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

asking for attention

DEAR

I LIKE TO SEND SPME LONODN PICTURE IN LONDON LITE

BUT COULD NOT FOUND PLEASE LET ME KNOW

Huh? For images try Wikipedia:Requested pictures or the Commons. — RJH (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Serials of SAB TV(India)

I request for feedbacks on the following articles at my talk page- Four(Indian Soap) or Four(SAB TV) Left Right Left(SAB TV) Love Story(SAB TV) Gj talent 16:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It would help us to help you if you followed the instructions at the top of the page. We really need to deal with one article per request, and you need to provide some more information that relates to your work on the article. And we usually reply here, not on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg

Article about a spiritual group that has been labeled a cult.

This article has been recently drastically changed. Feedback greatly appreciated. 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Loyola University New Orleans

I would like some outside feedback on this article, which I have worked on in spurts for over about a year. Any criticism is appreciated. Samwisep86 06:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it still looks a bit unreferenced — only two references for an article this length looks a bit like OR. The multiple subsections in "Student Life" could probably be merged as well. (The "Greek organisations" I think needs some explaining or at the very least wikilinks, since it will mean nothing to anyone outside the US.)
I do really like the use of images; too often in this kind of article you get fifteen similar shots of similar-looking buildings, but in this case they're all different and give a good feel of what the place must be like. I also like the fact you've put descriptive captions, rather than just "The xxx building" with the reader left to plough through a block of text to work out what the image refers to — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, but they are primary refs. Where are the secondary refs? It is far too under referenced. Incidentally, you should include the name of the website in the ref when using an online source, as I did when converting the first ref. Adrian M. H. 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A1 road (London)

I created this article after merging-and-redirecting five stubs on individual sections of this road (the five stubs can be seen here, along with my original Aldersgate Street article). I then completely rewrote the five stubs to a common format, wrote sections for the ten stretches of road that didn't have existing pages, and sourced representative images for the more interesting stretches of road to try to provide some kind of context for the way in which this road changes character along its length. I'd like to know what others think, both of this particular article and of this concept as a way to deal with long roads that run through a number of different districts — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Steenbok

Not sure what the next phase is. At the request of another user, I have provided a distribution map and standardized/styled the references. Please advise whether this could be deemed ready for peer review. Thanks—GRM 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems decent, although a little on the brief side. You could compare it to some of the entries under Wikipedia:Featured articles#Biology.2C medicine and psychology for additional ideas. BTW I got within 20-30m of one of these little creatures a few years back—it really is amazing that they can survive with so many superb predators around. — RJH (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Walters (author)

The article isn't finished; I just wanted to check I'm going in the right direction... I am intending to add articles for each book, similiar to Blast Off at Woomera Does this approach sound OK ? GrahamHardy 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given it a minor cleanup to improve its compatibility with the guidelines at MOS. Your refs need to be formatted properly with fuller information (see comment in text) per the layouts provided at WP:CITET (though you do not need to use those templates). I would suggest expanding on the subject's context and describe what makes him notable (create a proper lead section for this). By "notable", I do not just mean WP:N, but also what makes him interesting. You have touched very briefly on his memberships; expand on these if you can. These should not be in the lead section (when you create it) and should be somewhere in the body of the article. The same goes for his educational history. Try to keep it fairly chronological, ie: Early Life, Career Before Writing, etc. Look at other good quality bios to provide inspiration: Portal:Biography/Selected article/archive is a good place to go. Oh, and don't forget to get some categories in there: use any that are directly applicable, being as specific as possible, and don't repeat the entry into parent categories. Some of the sub-cats at English writers might apply. Message me if I can help with anything specific. Adrian M. H. 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I also took a look, and unless you can expand the articles on the books further, and include reviews of them, or other outside discussions, the articles are probably not viable separately. I do not know if there is enough material. DGG 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote this article 'Quality Issues in Pakistani Higher Education: Accountablity vs. Improvement debate' sometime back as a university Assignment. I thought I should be placing it on the Wikipedia so that people interested in higher education could be benefited. I didn't know properly how to upload the file. Now I got the message that it should be deleted within next five days.

Could you please look into the issue?

Eclipse

This article is listed on WP:Vital_articles#Astronomy and I've attempted to do some further development of the page. At this point, however, I'm at a bit of a loss what else to do. The Lunar eclipse and Solar eclipse pages cover those respective topics to a high level of detail, so I think this page only needs summary-style coverage. Is anything else needed? Or should I call it done; polish it up (with refs.), and take it for a PR? Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite interested in this subject, but I am no expert when it comes to astronomy. From my layman's viewpoint, it looks like a pretty decent article; it's probably ready for a proper peer review and then on to a GA nomination. But if you want more specific advice/feedback first, you could enlist the assistance of someone at the astronomy wikiproject. Adrian M. H. 17:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

my entry - Micro Focus (Micro Focus International plc)

Dear volunteer editors,

Last night I posted my first article, about Micro Focus International plc, but without a category, and I would like to delete it, but can not find it!! Then this morning, I posted the article, with categories, but in PDF format... Ugh! That is not want I wanted it to look like, either... so I posted it in a different format, one in which I could use your toolbar to create links, bold items, etc., with categories included at that bottom...

I also included a new category, to add to your incredible burden... sigh...

I posted my article because I was looking for items about application portfolio management (APM) and noticed you don't have any on the site. I included links to other reference works. I wrote up the information, based on my own research about this particular company. I hope that is okay.

Please let me know.

Sincerely, Sami Menefee

I removed your email address to protect your privacy. See your talk page where I have posted a welcome message that may answer, or has links to a tutorial that will answer, your questions. Thank you for joining Wikipedia! In the future if you need help it may be more useful to post questions at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page or Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks again! S.dedalus 05:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Buddhist

I have written and contributed an article (Black Buddhist) for publication. My article does not appear when I do a google search. Can you help me to get such article published or can you explain any errors I have made. I am sight impaired and may be missing some simple written instruction. Thanks Paololarenzo 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You have come through to Requests for Feedback, which is for requesting an informal review of your work on a specific article. You won't find your article via external search engines for days or weeks yet. Adrian M. H. 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Joanna Jepson

I'd welcome feedback, advice and help etc. on this article which I have been working on in my 'area', and have now uploaded. Suggestions how to link more properly to other articles, and how to do referencing properly (I have all the references, just not 100% sure how to present them) would be esp. welcome.

I'm actually 'pro choice' myself, but I remember reading about this in the news a few years ago, and when I noticed that the cleft palate article had only a vague, slightly out of date reference, I thought I'd write this.

Hopefully you will see that every effort has been made to ensure neutrality and that both sides of the argument are put across.

Feel free to edit/add to the article and leave comments here and on my talk page if necc.

Joistmonkey 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your refs are certainly a bit of a mess right now! Fortunately, footnotes are straightforward. Read this advice. You should cite all the quotes in particular, plus anything else that is even remotely questionable by the reader. BLP is a must-read policy. Don't use wikilinks in article sub-headings; it looks messy. Good effort with the NPOV; I think you succeeded on that count. Adrian M. H. 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a personal opinion, but I think your paragraphs are very short, especially in "The Case" section — it makes the page look a bit messy, and separating out almost every couple of sentences into different paragraphs isn't necessary since they're about the same topic — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I've had a go at merging a few paragraphs - might do a bit more later - and will read the footnote stuff and re-read the BLP before I sort out the references etc. in a day or two. Thanks for feedback. Anyone else wanting to give any, gratefully received. This is more about me learning how to write articles well, than it is about this particular article being perfick :-) Joistmonkey 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about perfection. If it was perfect, I would have listed it at FAC! It's nice to read comments such as yours about wanting to learn how to write good articles. MOS and IA can help with that process. Adrian M. H. 19:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hippolyte de Bouchard

Bouchard was a french-argenitne corsair who, among other things, occupated California in the name of Argentina. I've been translating the article from the Spanish featured article and now I've finished and am trying to feature it here in en. I need advice. I'm contacting editors who have a high level of English and Spanish to help me with the language. Argentini an 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles Upham

Hey everyone, ive done a few minor edits to this article (Charles Upham) and i intend to do more. The article is about one of the greatest war heros of our time! It is in desperate need of attention, can anyone suggest anything major that might improve the article a lot, i am less experienced on the subject of a good article, as i am a beginner at writing and editing articles. i intend to do some research for this article in my own time. He deserves more than this! Slowbro 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative method

Collaborative methods are processes, behaviors and conversations that relate to collaboration between individuals. I have written this article and created the images … another set of eyes is desperately needed!

  • Please check the writing and make this well written.
  • Also, please check the contents and ensure that it is appropriately broad in its coverage.

Thank you —Parhamr 11:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Excluding "See Also" and below, there (I think) sixteen individual lists, either numbered or bulleted. That really is far to list-heavy and I am sure that at least some of that content can be reformed into proper paragraphs. Use lists as sparingly as possible. Your writing style is OK, I think; perhaps a little too "HR-speak" in places for my liking, but I suppose that this is perhaps more difficult to avoid with a subject such as this. Some small tweaks are needed per the MoS, such as the layout of the "Values" section. It would benefit from a few extra references here and there and the "Notes" section should really be labelled as a "References" section, because it currently contains no notes. Quite a good effort, all in all. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent feedback, thank you! The list problem certainly exists and appears to be the top-priority item, now. —Parhamr 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AEMT-CC

This is a NYS EMT certification level. I re-wrote the article and would like it reviewed to see if there are any errors I have made/overlooked. Demantos 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow

I am currently in the process of rewriting the article here, and I am wishing if anyone is willing to help me out during writing who is more knowledgable than me with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, for me to cite the tie-in books more. Alientraveller 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for assistance are best posted at WP:EAR. If you want help with citations, see WP:FN, WP:CITET for the layouts for each type of source, and the advice to another editor at my talk page. Adrian M. H. 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on "Harringay"

The article on Harringay had been around since 2004, but was short and contained inaccuracies. Some of the original remains, including the final para which another user clearly didn't want deleted. But most of what's on the page is new. This link shows the diffs [22].

I noticed a message today about tone, and on digging down a start-up rating. Feedback please on what's needed re tone and how to move beyond start-up.

If you haven't read it already, you may want to read this very long discussion on precisely this topic at WP:LONDON — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Myth and ritual

I've recently made major additions to a little-known article called Myth and ritual. Myth-ritualism and Myth-ritualist redirect there. When I originally created the article, User:KillerChihuahua immediately (and prudently, now that I think about it) hit it with an "original research" notice.

As far as I can tell, the problem wasn't that I went too far: it's that I didn't go far enough. I mentioned only a few scholars as representative examples, making the article read more like an essay than like an encyclopedia article. Now I think I've fixed the problem by adding more information and references, so I've removed the "OR" notice. User:KillerChihuahua suggested that I ask other users to look over the article.

Please take a moment to look over myth and ritual and leave feedback on its talk page. More is better!

Current version: myth and ritual

Version before my major additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myth_and_ritual&oldid=130819843

Sorry; forgot to add signature. --Phatius McBluff 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusion about "hypostasis"

Please see my concerns about the hypostasis (linguistics) and hypostasis (religion) articles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypostasis_%28religion%29

Sorry; forgot to add signature. --Phatius McBluff 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Polyanhydrides

Hello everyone! I have added a new article to Wikipedia: Polyanhydrides. This is a class of polymers generally used in the medical or drug delivery fields. Any suggesstions or reccommendations would be much appreciated! polyanhydrides

Article would be better if references were standardized. Use this tool http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates be sure to click the add ref tag button when generating a citation. Demantos 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Du’a Khalil Aswad

A small article so far, but I would love some suggestions on how to improve it. S.dedalus 05:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While horribly tragic, it is unclear why this singular slaying is of particular notability, other than the video was widely distributed. Did it spark some type of political discourse or reforms? — RJH (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Kesel

Been trying to add a bit more to this article as it was rather barren when I first came across it. Her name was also misspelled all over the site. I don't consider myself a writer and would appreciate any comments/help I could get on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbecf (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 May 2007

The biggest issue is that it is essentially unsourced. You should add footnotes in the appropriate style (use the examples at WP:CITET to find those styles). Next up, the lead section; it should be a brief summary of the key points, establishing notability and reader interest, but here it is the bulk of the article. Much of its content belongs elsewhere in expanded paragraphs. Too many external links, some of which are, I suspect, your sources (so they need to be removed from that section and cited). Be careful about writing style and punctuation; I gave the lead a quick cleanup to correct a few such errors and added italics to book/comic titles. Adrian M. H. 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, ill continue to work on it in my spare time.--Campbecf 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that its ready to go from stub -> start class in the biography/comics ratings? Oh and - how do you add comments to these things without using linebreaks? :\ --Campbecf 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I added some indents for you, just to format this section correctly. Was that what you meant about avoiding the use of breaks? I'll let you read Wikipedia:Stub so that you can find out how to make that assessment yourself. Adrian M. H. 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Mharr066

This article describes The Employment Guide and employmentguide.com. I would just like some feedback as to how this article looks so far before I go any farther. Thanks! ---mharr066- 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you use a sub-page for online works in progress, because this gets in the way of people using your talk page. Move it to somewhere like User:Mharr066/Drafts Your draft is quite "advertorial" at the moment and it needs some wikification. You're probably aware of the MoS by now, but have a read of its pages if you have not seen them before. They're very useful. Some more secondary sources would be advantageous because a primary source should not be your primary source, if you see what I mean. Adrian M. H. 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion and mythology

PLEASE HELP EXPAND THE Religion and mythology ARTICLE!!! When I came upon it, it had almost no in-text citations. I did some editing, but it still needs a lot of work. Please help add citations and/or remove uncited material.

The article before I started editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_mythology&oldid=135364133

The article after my initial bout of editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_mythology&oldid=135420540

The article now: Religion and mythology --Phatius McBluff 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ishtar

When I came across this article, it had no references. I deleted everything I couldn't find a reference for, and added some stuff I did have references for. Please look it over and leave feedback on the article's talk page.

The article before my revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishtar&oldid=135433913

The article as of this posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishtar&oldid=135475853

The article now: Ishtar --Phatius McBluff 04:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hina

While I'm at it, I should probably mention this article as well. When I found it, it was a stub. I expanded the article, adding sections and references. Please take a look at it and leave feedback on its talk page.

Article's condition when I found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hina&oldid=132249612

Article's condition after my additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hina&oldid=133345911

Article's current condition: Hina

--Phatius McBluff 05:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Regine Velasquez

This is a biography of a living person. Wanted to get your expert opinion if the article meets Wikipedia standards and what can be done to improve the article.

Thanks! Maoster 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Per BLP, I have concerns about the relative paucity of references; just a few inline URLs and a few footnotes are not really enough to satisfy sourcing requirements for any article of that length, but particularly a BLP. Also, you might want to sort your <small> tags; you have no closing tags, which is playing havoc with the final few sections. The lead section should be trimmed and needs a degree of cleanup. It has a slight hint of POV and some of those peacock terms could be toned down a bit. Apart from that, not a bad effort. Adrian M. H. 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What is a "belting prowess"? A few of the paragraphs seem too long; you may want to split them to make it easier to read. There are also some single sentence paragraphs in the second half that need expanding or merging. Also "Jill of All Trades" should be converted to prose. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! These comments are really helpful. I really appreciate that. There are many editors/contributors on this article which is why its not coherent and I don't have full control. Some people unknowingly damage the format when the make their changes. I will re-edit the article and let you guys see the changes. My problem with the references is that most of the sources are video interviews and are not usually in print. Some sources are from online pages like YouTube which is very volatile. Some sources can suddenly disappear.

Belting prowess or ability, is when you are singing and you sustain or hold a note of a song(usually a high note) for a 5 - 10 seconds. This technique is used by singers of all genre. See Belting. It seems like there's a lot of work to do. I'll keep you guys posted. Maoster 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Harisu

I've been working on a new version of the text in my userspace for quite some time now, and I finally moved it over to the article earlier today. It still needs a little work before I take it to peer review, but I'd certainly appreciate any comments in the meantime. To compare my efforts with how the article used to look, see [23].

Thanks in advance! PC78 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have only given it a quick scan, would say that it is virtually ready for a GA review. That is some good work there. Well sourced, well structured, neutral. It could benefit from a few small tweaks in the text, but nothing significant. The most obvious of those minor tweaks is the text in the "Filmography" section. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the "notes" section of the filmography? Should it be using proper sentences? PC78 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it should. Capitals where necessary, too. Actually, I'm in two minds about whether the use of tables is the best choice altogether. Tables can look a bit out of place whenever they are not necessary, and they are not normally used in "---ography" sections. Adrian M. H. 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a look at that then. I'm going to keep the tables though, since there are plenty of other actor bios that follow this style (see Eric Bana or Angelina Jolie, for example). I think it's necessary if you want the filmography to be more than a simple list of films. PC78 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The picture gallery of the albums sections violates the fair use policy. These pictures have to be removed, which leaves very little in this section. So I would suggest fixing this first before you go for a GA review. Errabee 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I know, I'm currently working on a revised discography section. That's the main thing I want to do before I take it to peer or GA review. PC78 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments, hopefully the filmography and discography sections look a bit better. I've now requested a peer review for further comment before I nominate it for GA status. PC78 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Donald Meltzer

Hallo, this is my first article. It has a lot of tags re "unverified sources" and "controversial" etc so I have rewritten it to show the sources more clearly. Please tell me if this looks more suitable or if not, what I should do.

Also, For some reason the layout has changed and looks different from in the writing box. Why is this?

Does this count as a talk page - should lI sign it? ArtLit 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should always sign and date all comments. I wikilinked the title for you. I see that this is not only your first article, but your first contribution, so you deserve some marks for getting further than many newbies. For a start, it is referenced! However, the article is currently tagged with some significant issues: the possibility of COI and inaccuracies. These issues need to be discussed, and if I were the editor who tagged it, I would have opened a dialogue on the talk page. I fixed the layout for you: you had a simple markup error, which you will see in the diffs. I will take the time to study the article in depth when I have more time and if I have any further comments, I will let you know. Adrian M. H. 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor that tagged the article, pehaps in a reactive fashion towards a newbie. Yes, I should have opened a dialog on the talk page, and for that I'm sorry. I hope my tagging it eventually improves it. Thank you for your assistance. Bearian 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mharr066/Drafts

I have moved this page from my talk page and made some minor adjustments. After reading the MoS Guide, I'm still a bit puzzled as to how to make this article less "advertorial" (as the previous reviewer stated." Any advice/help would be greatly appreciated. -mharr066- 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is because good quality encyclopædic writing cannot easily be summarised into a guideline. My MoS suggestion was in reference to the need for wikification. It is a mix of instinctive ability and experience. At this time, your article is biased towards promoting the company and its product – you even have a trademark symbol, for example! – which I can appreciate is probably unintentional in this instance. You start by describing who the company targets and what it offers, and you give undue weight to it. This is advertorial, and makes it look like you just made a précis of some website content. I think you should look at some equivalent articles at GA and see what balance they strike. Adrian M. H. 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again for the advice. I'm going to keep working on this and hopefully I can improve the content and style. I've already made a few minor changes. Thanks too for your patience with me because (as I'm sure you know) it takes a while to get the hang of how things work here. I hope to get your input again when I post the next revision! -mharr066- 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus type 1

There has been much research and changes into the approach to type 1 diabetes. namely it has been discovered there are links to depression and diabetes 1, and that depression can have an adverse affect on diabetic control, if it is not treated. This is the first time that Diabetes has been linked to psychology, however shows how mind states can have an affect on a medical condition.

There are virtually no references in this article making the article, IMO, a stub. Lots of work needed to cite everything. Demantos 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This request really needs to be made at WikiProject Medicine, not here, as it requires specialist knowledge only the participants there are likely to have — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Homer Smoot

Article about an old time baseball player.

Any feedback is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 June 2007

See my reply below about references, because the same applies here. A couple of external links are not enough to reference your material. It really needs wikification as well. See WP:MoS, WP:LEAD and WP:IA for info. Another issue is the prose, which is not formal enough for an encyclopædia. As an example, a phrase such as "but the rheumatism got so bad he had to call his playing days quits" would be better as something like "but he was forced to retire from the field due to worsening rheumatism". Also, I wondered about the name; presumably, it wasn't Homer Vernon Smoot "Doc" Smoot with two "Smoots", but I opted not to change it unilaterally, as it might just be correct! Adrian M. H. 13:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd very strongly advise cross posting this request to Wikiproject Baseball, which is one of the more active WikiProjects. People with the knowledge to add to this are more likely to be lurking there than here — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Chalicotherium

A prehistoric mammal article begging to be done as it was initially just a redirect to chalicothere. Quite probably I got something wrong in there; care to give a look? Dracontes 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend standardizing the reverences using this tool http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/?type=isbn Formats citations correctly for books and webpages. Demantos 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd strongly recommend, if you haven't already, posting similar requests to WikiProject Mammals and WikiProject Extinction, as people there are most likely to have specialist knowledge to add to the article — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Ignore the above - I can see you already have... — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

John Oxley (ship)

Hi all. I have created an article John Oxley (ship), and would greatly appreciate feedback and constructive critisism on what's needed to enhance the quality of this article. It is still WIP, as I'm still researching and adding to the article. Thanks. Dreadnaught 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the most important problem; the article is unreferenced. You need to cite your sources for key statements, preferably using footnotes. Layouts for which can be seen here. There is a precis of the process on my talk page if you're interested. There are a few too many red links, particularly in the lead; you may find that some of these subjects can be found under slightly different titles. No other issues that jump out. Quite a good effort. It has some potential, so you might like to browse through the GA articles and consider whether this article could reach that standard. Adrian M. H. 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) On an unrelated note, you should use edit summaries more regularly.
Thank you for your input. I've corrected those errors, and added footnotes. Unfortunately, several of the links which are red like "Australian Heritage Fleet" (An organization) and "Coastal steamship" (something that should have an artcle but doesn't, and doesn't have any similiar substitutes) would require entire articles written. I have changed as many as I can, though. If there are any other issues that need correcting, please let me know. Thanks again for you assistance. Dreadnaught 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Something which isn't a problem yet, but soon will be, is that the images which illustrate it (Image:John Oxley10.jpg and Image:John Oxley0102.jpg) appears to be blatant (albeit good faith) copyright violations and will almost certainly be deleted. I believe (but double check this!) that Australian copyright law, as it's based on English law, allows an exemption for self-published photographs of works on display to the public, so you would be within your rights to release a photograph you'd taken yourself, but at present this appears to fall into "replaceable fair use" (non-free images which could potentially be replaced by free ones). As neither image is essential to the article, I don't think a fair use defence will stand up. (It may be that the Australian government has released the photos into the public domain, but if so this has to be documented on the image's page.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. Unfortunately, there are no free/public domain pictures that exist of the John Oxley that exist that I know of. For now, I'll be forced to simply continue to improve and expand on the textual content of the article, and hopefully, a Wikipedia user in Sydney will take a photgraph of the subject vessel. Thank you for your feedback. Dreadnaught 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernie Dowling

Bernie Dowling, born 1954, is an Australian journalist and author of the post-modern novel Iraqi Icicle.

The novel is written in a style of the private detective thriller. It explores the intersection of geopolitics and national identity as defined by popular entertainment such as music.

The novel is written in a racy humorous style hiding deep themes such as the impact of personal computers and mobile phones which came to Australia and boomed between 1986 and 1992, the years in which the novel is set. Independent bands including R.E.M., The Smiths and the Go-Betweens have a place in the novel alongside the American invasion of Panama and the first Iraq War. The novel also has anti-war themes and Bernie Dowling is the brother of anti-war activist Jim Dowling who was arrested for ``invading’’ the joint US-Australian spy base Pine Gap in 2005. In the early 1990s, Bernie Dowling was the first Australian journalist to break the story of the forced evacuation of the Logan City suburb of Kingston which was built above a toxic waste site. Dowling writes for two Australian newspapers, the Pine Rivers Press and the Northern Times where he supplements news reporting with a weekly humorous column.


The above article is about myself and I wouldm also like to submit one about Iraqi Icicle. I read the comments about thinking twice about submitting stuff about yourself so I thought ask for feedback.

Below is the submission for Iraqi Icicle:

Iraqi Icicle is the title of a post-modern novel by Australian journalist Bernie Dowling

The novel is written in a style of the private detective thriller. It explores the intersection of geopolitics and national identity as defined by popular entertainment such as music.

The novel is written in a racy humorous style hiding deep themes such as the impact of personal computers and mobile phones which came to Australia and boomed between 1986 and 1992, the years in which the novel is set.

Independent bands including R.E.M., The Smiths and the Go-Betweens have a place in the novel alongside the American invasion of Panama and the first Iraq War. The novel also has anti-war themes and Bernie Dowling is the brother of anti-war activist Jim Dowling who was arrested for ``invading’’ the joint US-Australian spy base Pine Gap in 2005.

You may want to be careful about this. Wikipedia policy has generally been to discourage writing articles about yourself. (C.f. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.) But I believe it is acceptible to post an autobiography in the user space. In addition, if your credentials satisfy WP:BIO, you could also add your name to the Wikipedia:Requested articles page. Those requests are usually satisfied within a few years if there are neutral sources available. — RJH (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Just don't post it on your user page unless you want it to be speedied. Adrian M. H. 19:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, both articles would be speedily deleted as {{db-advert}} if they went live. It's fine to have articles on books, authors etc if they are referenced to independent, not trivial sources - eg, press coverage of yourself or the book - but not if they're personal opinion. They also need to be neutral, which neither of the above currently is. While it's not forbidden, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged because it's so hard to be neutral - you might want to have a read of WP:COI which goes into more detail — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A short summary of both topics (Bio and Book) may be appropriate for a user page. Bearian 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hill City, South Dakota

I could use a fresh pair of eyes on my first major article Hill City, South Dakota which is about a small tourist town in the Black Hills of South Dakota. I need help knowing what needs to be sourced and what doesn't. I have a web based references. Also let me know what sounds POV - the town's economy is mostly based on tourism. What needs to be expanded or removed? There was a Points of Interest section when I first started editing this page, and am thinking of taking it out. Let me know what you think. I am currently working on getting some public domain or free use photo for this article. Lmielke359 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On a skim through, I'd take the bit about athletics, fishing etc out of the lead section - the dogsledding is unusual enough to be of interest, but the rest could apply to pretty much any town. There's also a potentially serious BLP violation ("the president of the institute was convicted on two counts customs violations for which he served two years in federal prison"); if you're going to make a claim like this, it has to be sourced which it currently isn't, and the Wikipedia article on the man in question makes no mention of any such incident. Other than that, it seems fine, although it could do with a minor copyedit as some of the sentences are a little long — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought of another point - my SD geography's hazy, but from the map it seems presumably the town's smack in the middle of traditional Lakota territory, but from the article noone lived there before 1876 - if anything happened in pre-settlement times it's probably worth mentioning. (And there's got to be a better term to use than "white settlement", but I can't think of what it is) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
OK removed non-notible info from lead, as for the BLP reference - it is cited #12 on my list - the citation occurs at the end of the paragraph. I updated the history to include a Native American backdrop to the Black Hills - and changed "white settlement" to "American settlement" however, as you mentioned there is just not a good way to say this. Thanks for looking at this article.

By the way do you think that a town with 780 people could ever be a FA. Lmielke359 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it could, if there is enough verifiable material to write about. The FA selection has plenty of comparatively obscure subjects. Adrian M. H. 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Something else that occurs to me - particularly if you're aiming to take it to GA/FA status - is to add some images. If you're in the town or know someone there, it would be a good idea to take some photos & upload them, to give readers a feel for the town and to break up the large blocks of text. Have a look at what I've done with the highly unphotogenic Broadwater Farm and A1 road (London), for example - although don't take them as a model to follow if you're aiming for FA status as they both (deliberately) breach the Manual of Style in many places. There is an issue you need to be aware of here in that, while in English law it's legal to publish photographs of buildings, in much of the US it can be taken as breach of the architect's copyright, and I've no idea what the SD situation is. Pre-1923 archive photos/drawings of the town are automatically in the public domain if you can dig some out — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, I am working on some getting some public domain historic photos through a Historian in Hill City. I may also contact the Chamber of Commerce and the local newspaper to see if I can get some snapshots that could be put into the public domain or attributed through a creative commons licence. Good point about the legality of publishing photos of buildings - I will have to look into that. I wish I still lived in Hill City - I could just take some photos myself! Lmielke359 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Digital radio in the United Kingdom

Started the article a few weeks ago after a request from another editor to resolve a NPOV conflict by collaborating all of the information about digital radio broadcasting in the United Kingdom into one article. I have made up the bulk of the work and I think I have covered everything notable. I think it should be heading towards B-class, though it has only been rated as a stub! Feedback, suggestions and even improvements would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --tgheretford (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that someone probably entered the wrong class in error, because no one would mistake that for a stub. You are free to go ahead and change it. I have only given it a quick skim over, but it looks good; nicely written, fact-driven, well sourced, with balanced points of view. Some of the sections may need a bit of expansion (where possible), but you are on the right track. Adrian M. H. 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I have reassessed the article carefully and re-rated it accordingly. I don't think it is quite up to good article status yet, but I believe it is getting there, maybe even almost there. --tgheretford (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it could probably go for a GA review soon. When I have asked for GAs in the past, I have tended to give myself a week or so to look it over and make little tweaks as needed. Seems to work well. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

While I won't review it as it's a specialist field I don't know enough about to judge validity, in principle I'd (weakly) pass it as a WP:GA as it stands with only a couple of modifications. My personal concerns are; a lack of images - it's very text heavy at the moment (I think a graph of DAB takeup, possibly in comparison to DTTV, would be a good thing, and even 'generic' photos of transmitters, radio broadcasters' studios etc would break up the text); the long lists, while possibly necessary, swamp the article towards the end; and a possible (inadvertent) non-NPOV in that the "Criticisms of..." section is relatively large while there's no "Advantages of..." section. I'm also not convinced by the "58% of the population listen to" claim in the lead; on reading the source article, it seems to be "58% of the population have access to" not "58% listen to" (I am able to access, for example, French-language channels on my TV, but I don't do so.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have made some changes as you suggested, I managed to get a table uploaded detailing the share of digital radio listening as per figures at RAJAR, and I have made the change from "listen to" to "access to". I'll implement the other suggestions once I can source references. The only problem with DAB is that there is a lot more media coverage of its criticism than of its advantages (without it sounding like WP:SPAM anyway). I'll also see if I can add some free use images to the article as well. --tgheretford (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If you have access to back issues of IT magazines, you should be able to find some articles that go through the upsides as well as the downsides. Adrian M. H. 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have added some benefits of DAB with references and added another picture, how does it look now? --tgheretford (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That looks really good. Definitely near to GA now, and enough to initiate a review (which takes a few weeks due to the perpetual backlog). Adrian M. H. 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --tgheretford (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Frank Farina

Hi, I've just rebuilt this page, and am looking for any feedback people might have. Thank you. Macktheknifeau 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a very good effort, and a promising start. However, the greatest fault with the article that I can see is the lack of references. Also, a few more internal links throughout would benefit the content. Dreadnaught 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric Schwarzkopf

Having a bit of trouble.

Made an edit re: a footnoted reference. But only the footnote shows (#1 after 'fled to the United States') ...not the reference below.

Also, most army docs of that time were burned in the '73 fires, so I may not be able to find specific references (more than word of mouth) re: Schwarzkopf's personal history; however, there are many references to the different battles, pathfinders, and Camp King (the camp near Oberursel), where much of the surveillance of ss officers took place. Would those more general footnotes be acceptable or not to bother?

Finally, since a reference has been made can the top citation be removed:

                   This article does not cite any references or sources.


Thanks so much for your help!Nomoreworldwar 10:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You could easily have swapped {{unsourced}} for {{refimprove}}, but I went ahead and did so for you. It is up to any editor to make appropriate changes to an article's tag status. I also fixed a pretty fundamental issue with the ref display, in that you had no References section! You should have a read of WP:FN and/or the first question on my talk page (be quick before I archive it). You should correct the layout of your ref and include more data (again, see that talk page question); it is not sufficient as it is now because it gives very little specific data about the source. Do you best with what sources you have, but stick to the requirements of WP:ATT, WP:REF and WP:RS. Adrian M. H. 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I almost forgot. WP:BLP. That one is really important. Adrian M. H. 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

René Laennec and Charles Eric Maine

I would like to have a review of an article I extensively updated laennec. Also, I wrote a new article Charles Eric Maine.

Thank you very much. Queequeg804 17:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the article titles in the heading, which is good practice with this page. It makes particular sections much easier to find at a glance. I see that René Laennec has a cleanup tag; if you want to improve the article, your first priority would be to address all of its formatting shortcomings. Next, it needs to be referenced properly; it is very messy at the moment, with a couple of inline URLs and a motley bunch of reference sources in different layouts (none of which are correct). I will have a look at Charles Eric Maine later. Adrian M. H. 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

New Article

I created an article about the Saskatoon Youth Orchestra, and was wondering on how to label it as a stub, or if that would even be acceptable in this situation. Here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_Youth_Orchestra Much thanks in advance. Tynedanu 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The "stub" classification wouldn't be necessary in this case, as the article is larger than a stub. See Wikipedia:Stub for details if you haven't already. Dreadnaught 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Tynedanu 05:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster

The article could use feedback on overall clarity and comprehension. For example,

  • Is the order of events clear?
  • Can some sections be split off, which? Do some fall beyond the article's scope?
  • Other comments are welcome. --Riurik(discuss) 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a long article, so I will read it in full when I have the time to do it justice and give you some feedback then. It looks very good at first glance. Adrian M. H. 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, too long and I want to make it more slender. There is no rush on it, but your comments will be very appreciated, either on the entire entry or a couple of sections. --Riurik(discuss) 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

F. G. Haghenbeck

El escritor F. G. Haghenbeck nació en la ciudad de México. Creció entre misas y nopales en Tehuacán, Puebla. Estudió arquitectura. Trabajó en museos, publicidad y televisión, para al final dedicarse a escribir comics: Crimson (Wildstorm); Alternation (Image Comics): Y aun no sabe si es un orgullo ó algo que esconder, junto con Oscar Pinto, es el único escritor mexicano en Superman (DC Comics).

Su novela policíaca TRAGO AMARGO (Joaquín Mortíz,Planeta ISBN: 968-27-1043-X) ganó el premio VUELTA A LA TUERCA 2006 . Un día lo nominaron a un MTV Award; Ganó algo en el Premio Nacional de cuento policíaco 2007,el Julio Verne 2005 y Mano Obra 2006 (ISBN: 970-985-418-6); escribió un cuento infantil llamado NIÑA MAR; y su personaje Acrata apareció en la serie Smallville, pero no se lo dice a nadie.

Vive en Puerto Vallarta con una hermosa chef, su perra Brandy, el fantasma de John Huston, y es amigo de un espía de la guerra fría al que prometido no delatarlo.

Me hablo no Español, señor. http://es.wikipedia.org/ Adrian M. H. 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Miniature Ingestible Capsule/Wireless capsule endoscopy

Hello. Please, what do you guys make of those two articles? Miniature Ingestible Capsule and Wireless capsule endoscopy. The articles look confusing, but I lack the necessary expertise. Thanks in advance.Stellatomailing 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wireless capsule endoscopy needs a complete rewrite and wiki formatting and it needs many more (and better) sources. It currently fails WP:RS and WP:ATT. I have tagged it accordingly, but if it remains unchanged, it may find get an AFD nomination. Miniature Ingestible Capsule is even worse; it is not much more than corporate advertorial, so is almost certainly an AFD candidate. I won't nominate it just yet, but I don't really think that it is redeemable in any way. Adrian M. H. 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxford University Chess Club

I was just wondering if folks would mind taking a look at this article. I nominated it for deletion when it had no sources, but some have been added so it may well be kept, but I'm still concerned that the current state of the article remains poor. Since I don't have confidence my concerns will be listened to with an open mind, I was hoping to get some opinions from folks elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The big chunk of text that was lifted from the minutes should be rewritten in an original form. That's the one thing that really jumps out. It is moderately well sourced, but notability is a bit borderline. See if someone involved in Wikiproject Chess is willing to assist with its improvement. Adrian M. H. 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800

I've done a complete re-write of this, and though alot more work needs to be done I'd appreciate some feedback regarding the general format of the article, specifically:

  • Readability - do your eyes get droopy reading all the technical stuff?
  • Length - I'm considering starting to spin-off sections into sub-articles and expanding them slightly

Thanks, Lipsticked Pig

Readability: no, no issues there.
Length: Don't split it off into sub-articles. No need to cater for ADD type that might not be able to read through 40k of real text (excluding references, markup etc)
Other comments: Convert the "TWA 800 in the media" section into prose, rather than a list. Better yet, integrate it into the rest of the text somehow. ATM it looks like a disconnected series of facts, standing apart rather uncomfortably from the rest of the text (which is of rather good quality, IMHO). Not sure if the "Accident sequence" section is necessary enough to set up a stub section. It may (and only may) be in the "nice if we had it but not necessary" category. Maybe more wikilinks in the text would be nice.
Apart from that, excellent work. I'm quite sure this article could at least make good article with the above changes. :) Well done on your rewrite. Lewis Collard! (natter) 12:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

From Essex to Cutty Sark to Wyoming - a History of Full Rigged Ships

Hello,

I posted this article on June 7, 2007 without having thoroughly absorbed Wikipedia markup and format requirements. Article has been posted at this url with comments to that effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Essex_to_Cutty_Sark_to_Wyoming_-_a_History_of_Full_Rigged_Ships

Significant edits as to typos, grammar, syntax, Wikified and format were made during the following several days ending on June 13, 2007. First and last drafts/edits can be compared at this url.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=From_Essex_to_Cutty_Sark_to_Wyoming_-_a_History_of_Full_Rigged_Ships&diff=137919433&oldid=137218484

My question is this. When do Wikipedia editors look at an edited page, comment as to progress, -indicate further changes needed, and possibly remove the Comment Boxes at the top of the article page as to editing needed ?

Anyone who wishes to further tighten up format/markup re Wikipedia guidelines and requirements is welcome to do so.

With thanks for guidance and information ..

kind regards,

Merlynne6 09:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (do I also type user name following tildes?)

Looking at that article, I'm seeing zero Wikilinks, and a lot of external links. While external links are acceptable, exclusively being external links is a problem. It also reads more like an essay than an article. you may want to look at full-rigged ship for an example of covering this subject in a more encyclopedic fashion. I'm not even sure the title is appropriate for Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (Ooops, I forgot to sign)

With many thanks for your comment and advice, I will soon add several Wikilinks to take care of that deficiency. I did look at full-rigged ship. At the end of the day, do you think that an article such as 'From Essex to Cutty Sark to Wyoming - a History of Full Rigged Ships' is too wide ranging for Wikipedia, as you note it could be categorized as an essay ? Merlynne6 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the title is a bit too wordy for an Wikipedia article, and I suggest maybe covering the history of full-rigged ships within that article. It certainly does need some improvements, and would be the most likely search term. FrozenPurpleCube 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again Mr. Manticore - Latest edits as you've seen are minor text and format changes and the addition of internal links to Wikipedia articles. I assume that to change the title, I must delete this article and resubmit anew with new title ? I do not see any option to change title, which of course would also change page url. I would like to amend title to "History of Full Rigged Ships" per your suggestion.

My goal is to finalize this article's format to the extent that the notices across the top of the page as to deficiencies will be removed and/or replaced by remarks that have less design emphasis. Do you think that is possible and can you indicate how and when Wikipedia reviews for this change? Might I ask if you are a Wikipedia editor/administrator and/or marine historian ?

My thanks again for your time and consideration with these edits. Merlynne6 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is an editor and some 1200-odd editors are also admins, but that makes no difference to an editor's credibility, in case that was what you were asking. We don't wear our professional credentials on our sleeves, either. If you want to rename an article, you MOVE it, but a MERGE might be more appropriate if you have a content fork. I'll leave that up to you, but bear in mind that content forks often go to AFD and get consensus to be merged, which could just have happened anyway without the strain on AFD. I think that Full rigged ship is worth improving and you may be well-placed to do it. Adrian M. H. 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian - Tonight's editing .. Following your good suggestions, I've renamed the article to 'History of Full Rigged Ships' and Moved it accordingly. No problems noted afterwards, no double redirects etc see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Full_Rigged_Ships.

My next questions are this: What next edits/changes are needed to remove, modify and/or reduce in size these two notices at the top of the article page:

This article (or section) may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article, especially its section layout, and relevant internal links. (help)This article has been tagged since June 2007.

This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available, as is general documentation. This article has been tagged since June 2007.

Can you make such a decision alone as an Editor ? Or do you need to confer or 'meet with' several other editors to obtain a group consensus?

Please understand that my question about your precise position with Wikipedia was in no way intended to be critical. I was merely curious having volunteered as a copy editor for an academic, anthropology journal many years ago in which articles were peer reviewed. Writing for the readership of Wikipedia is a very different universe which I intend to learn as quickly as possible.

Again my thanks and appreciation for your time and guidance. Ben B.

Merlynne6 09:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work with the move (checking for double redirects). Tags can be removed by anyone as long as the removal is justified – unjustified removals (where a shortcoming genuinely exists but has not been remedied) should be reverted. So the ideal way to deal with tags is to fix the shortcoming. Let's take wiki formatting first; I will list some of the most obvious problems that I can see at a glance:
  1. URLs in body text. Use wikilinks.
  2. External links in body text.
  3. No lead section.
  4. Inappropriate use of bold text.
  5. Badly positioned image gallery.
  6. Lengthy section headings.
  7. Non-standard headings for standard sections.
And a major issue – tangentially related to wiki formatting – no references! Material has to be attributed to reliable independent sources through the use of citations (preferably footnotes). Two links in that last bit because they are both important. See the first question at the top of my talk page.
Now, the copyediting. I would probably have been more specific had I been the one to tag it, and opted for {{essay}}. It reads like an essay, but it should read like an encyclopædic article. Have a look at FAs because they set the standard, and read guidelines such as the MoS and article development. Adrian M. H. 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian,

With thanks for your formatting guidelines. Questions for your next comments - - I typically reference in body text what in my opionion is the best site or url for the item, and choose to do so in this article whether or not link was external or Wiki. Does Wiki require that all links in Body Text be wikilinks? I can easily do so if required. - I am struggling to reposition image gallery ..:) - Will work on rephrasing section headings.. - Can you explain a bit further 'non-standard headings for standard sections'? - I can also easily add reference section at end and will do so in next edits. Is it required to have some references to print media, even when digital edition is not available, and/or paper edition is not free - must be purchased. In the latter case, is a link to book page at amazon.com. questia or abc books permitted? - I will look at essay definition, requirements vrs article as you suggest.

Next edits will develop slower than the past week, schedule here now is very busy...

best regards,

Ben Merlynne6 09:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You should not be using any external links in text, for two reasons; firstly, it looks an eyesore and contradicts the accepted Wikipedia article style and secondly, it makes it harder for editors to enforce (for want of a better word) the EL and SPAM guidelines. On that note, there are many established practices and preferences for which a written guideline is not always deemed necessary. Editors are encouraged to follow the styles and conventions of the best articles. For standard section headings, see WP:HEAD. An external links section should be titled External links or, if it happens to coincide with your most used sources (in addition to refs), call it Resources. Remember that you do not have to have any external links, and less is better. My earlier footnote links (specifically the template page) and WP:RS (read that and WP:ATT in full) indicate what sort of sources you are likely to use. Bookshops are not generally among them, and I am not sure what information you might expect to get from them unless you need a synopsis. Printed or online does not matter much, as long as it is reliable (has some editorial oversight); not a weblog or forum; independent of the subject; etc, etc. That's just skimming the surface of the subject. I might chip in with a few formatting edits later to help you out. Adrian M. H. 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello Adrian -

The continual link references to the Wiki style manual and related pages are much appreciated.

Found some unexpected time for further editing tonight but before going into those specifics, two other questions for you. 1) More than once you have remarked that this 'article' is more of an essay, than what Wikipedia defines as an article for the encyclopedia. While editing including some rewriting continues, I don't forsee a major new approach to this material. At the end of the day, am I fighting an 'uphill battle', i.e. this 'piece' cannot be accepted as a good article because it will be forever categorized as an 'essay'. Tell me true, aboslutely no hard feelings whatever you might say. 2) Last night you said "And a major issue – tangentially related to wiki formatting – no references! Material has to be attributed to reliable independent sources through the use of citations (preferably footnotes)." I found this confusing as there were several external links to authorative material in the text (soon to be removed per Wiki style guidelines), and there are more than 15 internal wiki links in the text as well. Are such 'Wiki article links' not counted as 'references'? Are some footnotes required or at author's discretion, but then only to Wiki articles? Brief thought to use a few book shop links has been cancelled :)

As you've seen, tonight's edits include: a) reorganization and expansion of TOC, leading section created and section headings rewritten/expanded; b) removable of inappropriate bolding of words for emphasis, c) centering of six masted schooner photo; and d) reorganization/edit of External Links section.

Next in line edits include removing of all external links from text - wiki links only henceforth - altho I notice the style manual states that text may include some external links. ??

I understand the need of editors to rigorously oversee external links so that nonsense, non authorative writing etc do not appear in articles. Certainly that is paramount for today's explosive web.

By all means chip in with some formatting edits at any time, that would be great!

With many thanks,

best regards, Ben Merlynne6 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll deal with the refs first. Material must be cited, and external links – whether in the proper section or bunged in the text – cannot be counted as refs. Not least because how can the reader know, without doing a lot of unnecessary reading, what material is cited by which link and whether the writer was actually doing his research properly anyway? We sometimes see refs that do not support the material to which they relate. You might have used some or all of them as sources, but that needs to be demonstrated in one of two ways. I'll explain the cheap, lazy, bad way first: Embedded citations via numbered URLs like this.[24] This looks ugly and lacks important at-a-glance information, such as the title, source, publishing date and retrieval date. It is also useless for offline material, of course. Now the proper way: footnotes. The best way to do that is to use linked notes, as explained in detail on my talk page and at WP:FN. There is also a similar form called Harvard referencing. Again, any FA will use proper refs in an appropriate layout and quantity, and you can bet the requisite peer review that awarded FA status would have checked those sources. They do the same for GA, even though each article is reviewed by a single editor.
Now the essay issue. I believe that this subject can be written about in a proper style without any hint of an essay. How to do that is up to you. It can come naturally to some and with practice to others. There are plenty of poorly written articles on Wikipedia, but fortunately some really excellent articles as well. Maybe you can take some inspiration from them. I'm reticent to do any rewriting for you for two reasons. Firstly, I believe in learning by doing (it has always worked for me) and secondly, I would have to rip a lot material out of the article and pair it back to the bare bones. Which actually might not be a bad idea, now that I think of it; if you try that, you might find it easier to rebuild the article in a new style.
On another note, you might need to get more accustomed to wiki formatting; when I edited the article yesterday, I was surprised to see that you had attempted to use HTML markup to format paragraphs and I was terribly disappointed to see that it was not valid! ;) You don't need any HTML markup except a small number of tags that are available from the editing toolbar, such as the small tags that I just used. We use divs and style declarations for certain purposes (not normally in articles) but everything else is wikitext. Adrian M. H. 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Just had a quick look at the article. You still need a lead section in there, which is important, and the photo gallery belongs further down towards the bottom. These were part of the changes that I made yesterday, though I stopped short of rewriting the first paragraphs to form a proper lead. It would be better still, actually, to spread the gallery images throughout the article, alternating left and right. See WP:PIC and WP:LEAD for help with these improvements. Adrian M. H. 15:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian,

Yes certainly you should not have to rewrite to any extent, that is my responsibility as author and as you say one learns best by 'doing'. All html tags should be long gone, a few were in early drafts. I don't see the the new lead section and repositioning of photo gallery that you mention, but no matter.. I will attend to that.

Footnotes as linked notes, yes.. that will come in next edits. I see many Wikipedia articles using Embedded citations via numbered URLs, that approach seems common but inferior as you describe. Confident in my own ability to screen references, writing and research for rigor and professionalism, I often forget that an editor is 'running blind' and cannot assume that experience with any new, unknown author.

Overly busy with other commitments these two days, will get back to editing in a day or two.

Thanks as always, best regards,

Ben Merlynne6 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You can see the changes that I made in this version, but they were either undone or overwritten inadvertently. Not an issue, though. If you have any more questions, you're welcome to post on my talk page as this thread is getting very long now. Regards, Adrian M. H. 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Adian,

Thanks for the comprehensive writing/editing links on my User Talk page and your Welcome. Saved your June 20 edit. Yes, I'll switch over to your talk page, hopefully our lengthy discussion had some useful tidbits for other writers. Back in a few days after a revised proper approach to links and references is in places. With appreciation as always. Ben Merlynne6 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Trevor Belmont

Trevor is a fictional character from the Castlevania video game series. I did some heavy revisions to the original article, which was flagged for in-universe POV. I tried to fix that, and added quite a bit of information. [25]

I'd like to get this article ready to post on the Peer review section, and see if I can get it on its way to becoming featured. Or at least good, I don't know if it is extensive or big enough to be featured.

I want to know what is confusing, what still sounds too "in-universy," if I went overboard on citations for some of the plot summaries, and if any information should be omitted or expanded upon. Any suggestions or comments on any of those would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance, KristenDArgyle 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)KristenDArgyle

Enron Scandal

With an eye toward guiding this article to FA status, I'd appreciate comments on the article's main deficiencies. Much of the copy was originally to be found on the Enron Corp wiki page, but I spun the scandal of 2001 topic into its own page for length reasons. I myself have more or less written the copy you see now from the start all the way to the section "aftermath" -- which is to say more or less to where the citations die off. Cheers for any comments. Pablosecca 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Horseradish

Hi! I wonder if I might get some feedback on the article horseradish that I've been editing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horseradish&diff=141905695&oldid=140246347

I started editing it because I came here looking for some information on cultivation of Horseradish which wasn't included in the article as I found it, and when I looked at the discussion pages I saw that it was classified as a high-importance article in WikiProject Plants that was only classified as being of start-class status both in WikiProject Plants and WikiProject Food & Drink. I added a section on cultivation, then just sort of segued into editing/annotating the rest of the article. I've never done any major edit before, so I thought I'd better check in.

Thanks for any help!

Valereee 23:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ye Chunji, Wang Xijue, and Tomas de Mercado

I wanted someone to look at these articles. They were created by a single user who used an AP sample test as the source. These articles consist of a one sentence summary and a quote. They just seemed odd to me, and I don't know what to do. I do not believe they are copyvios because the copied, quoted text is hundreds of years old. I'm not sure what I think about using a sample test as a source, and if it is reliable. Anyway, just wanted another pair of eyes to look at these 3 articles and see what can be done, if anything. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are really half-hearted efforts, certainly, but such very short stubs are quite common. The quotes are given undue weight by percentage of content (used as fillers, I suppose) but, being quotes, they have no copyright issues. If you are familiar with the subjects, there is probably plenty that could be done to expand and improve them. Adrian M. H. 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I was concerned that wikipedia is not a primary source, and that we should devote that much percent of an article to quotes, although these are short stubs. Also the source seemed odd. Anyway, I do not know anything about these topics, I just came across them while sorting categories. Hopefully someone will see this and be inspired to work on these articles. If not, I may try to do some research myself. Thanks for your comment.-Andrew c 03:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Feedback for CNR (software)

Hello! I made several edits on CNR (software) that really changed the article (Diff) (note: my first edit on the page was done by IP address).  Tcrow777  talk  04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. For the most part, it avoids any suggestion of advertorial, although it lacks a certain balance that would be afforded by covering the history and development of the software. I'm not too keen on seeing prices quoted; there is a guide somewhere that discourages that. The weakest aspect is the references; you have two refs to Wikipedia articles and the rest amount to what are basically first party sources. This fails WP:V, which requires that secondary sources (that contain non-trivial treatments) are used first and foremost. I would be quite surprised if there are not more suitable sources available. Adrian M. H. 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been studying CNR for a very long time, what you say makes a lot of sense, I will look into all of it.  Tcrow777  talk  22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hibiki's Magic

I would like some feedback. Blackcat52 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You have given a lot of undue weight to the plot with no encyclopædic content other than that found in the short lead. It is also unreferenced. I recommend that you start by rewriting and restructuring the article in a proper encyclopædic form with facts, such as the background to the series and details of its creators. Find reliable independent sources with which you can cite all your material via footnotes. Adrian M. H. 17:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hydrofloric Acid (HF)

There are many uses for hydroflouric acid(HF). Hydroflouric Acid is manufactured by feeding flourispar(Spar), which is mined in Mexico and China, that will create a waste product called calcium flouride at the end of the process. A strong grade of sulfuic acid and oleum, which has a negative water, is then fed into furnaces at about a 90% strength. Heat is applied on the external skin of the furnaces. The end result after condensing the product is called commercial grade HF. (98% HF). It is sent to storage and reprocessed to be stripped of water, SO2 and NVA(Non volatile acid). The end product is a 99.99% strength of Hydroflouic Acid. This product can be stored in carbon steel storages as well as pipe and rail cars/trailers for shipment. However, when water is added at a controlled rate(slowly injected to eliminate the heat associated with 2 added hyrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (H2O), it must be stored in rubber lined vessels and storages due to its corrosive properties. (Aqueous HF). There are many uses for aqueous HF and etching glass is one of them. Complete PPE is required for handling, sampling and loading this product(HF or Aqueous grade). Monsodium Gluconate is injected into the infected body parts to eliminate further distruction of the infected parts.Hf attachs calcium so it travels to the bone. It is painful and death can occur within minutes if treatment is not properly cared for in a timely manner. Of course where the burns are located can speed up death. Proper handling is very important in handling this product. There are many uses of HF. For instance when you turn on your air conditioner at home you can thank HF for the creation of ozone friendly refrigerant that gives you the cool in your home and auto. HF and perchloroethylene stoicametrically mixed and vapored through aluminum oxide catalyst produces the refrigerants for commercial and residential applications. Blown-in insulation is manufactured using HF.

68.106.164.116 12:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)—≥≥×←

To which article are you referring? Adrian M. H. 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

article on Greg Causey murder case on realcrimes.com

I have an article on realcrimes.com concerning my son's murder case. I would like to get responses on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.195.207 (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2007

This project is intended to provide feedback about work that editors have done towards Wikipedia articles. Adrian M. H. 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why "undo"

In the articles I have placed recently "UNDO" appeared in the history. Why? What is wrong? The articles are: Fluid physics and Nucleate boiling. Please answer on my talk page. Thank you. --LidiaFourdraine 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothings wrong, an (undo) link is now available for each edit on page histories, without going via the (diff) link first. (r23771, bug 1783). This applies to the history of every article on Wikipedia, not just the one's you've edited. So, no worries! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This sort of thing should be placed at the HD, or NCH if you are new to WP. RFF is specifically for feedback about a user's work on an article. Adrian M. H. 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agriculture in China

I recently created this article on the agriculture of China, and I need suggestions on what improvements might be made. Specifically, are there any important segments of information anyone feels I've left out or need expanding? Are there any statements in dire need of citations? How could the article be improved graphically? Thanks! johnpseudo 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a very nice article! It's well organized into sections and is well written in an easy to read style. You are right in that some additional citations could be used. There are several entire sections that don't have a single citation, including the introduction, Communism in China, and Major agricultural products. You might want to use citation templates for your references since the simple links provided for your online sources aren't very informative of what the sources are. Also, the images should all be related to the content of the article and they all should be captioned. For example, it would be more appropriate to have a climatological map rather than a political map of the country (if you can find or get someone to make a agricultural map, that would be even better), and the image of terraced fields should be related to something in the text regarding the use of terraces in Chinese agriculture. Overall it's a very nice article. Thanks for posting and happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bates Australia

I have recently uploaded this article and there was a note on it to say that it did not contain references. I have now edited the article and it contains references, but the message is still there. I'm not sure what needs to be done to the article in terms of more references in order to have the message removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Regina Skrapac (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 July 2007

Hello and thanks for your post. Maintainence tags such as {{Unreferenced}} and {{Notability}} may be removed by any editor once the problem has been addressed, however in this case the problems have yet to be fixed. The problem is that using the company's own website as a reference is insufficient. For inclusion in the encyclopedia a subject has to meet the relevant notability criteria; in general it has to have been non-trivially mentioned in multiple, secondary, reliable sources that can be cited in the article to verify the information. In other words, you need to find sources that aren't associated with the company itself. Newspaper or magazine articles (not advertisements!), books etc. would all be good sources for your article. Read the policies and guidelines I have linked to here (they're also linked to from the maintainence tags on the article) to get more details. Thanks again for your post and good luck! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse

Howdy -- I just made this article, and I was wondering what you guys though could be improved/expanded. I was thinking that I could write a "pre-history" section, and explain the First Nations history of the site, rather than making an article on Kosapsom -- however, I'm not sure. What do you like/not like about the article? What you would like to see more/less of? Haemo 23:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent article, and I hope you enjoyed your time on the DYK today! A pre-history section might not be a bad idea since I did wonder about that when I read about the three distinct periods/types of human habitation. Beyond that I don't have much to add. Kudos to you on such a nice article! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I added an "early history" section (since pre-history is ethnocentric, in retrospect), and another picture, which I'm not 100% happy about. --Haemo 06:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

COMAC - Chinese Overseas Movement of Advanced Culture

Hi I'd like feedback on this page please. COMAC - Chinese Overseas Movement of Advanced Culture I'm new so not very experienced. TIA Gordon —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkinGordonAtwell (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 July 2007

The article has some issues that need to be fixed, particularly the absence of references. It fails WP:V, which makes it a potential AFD candidate. It is not very well written at the moment, suffering to some degree from a non-neutral advertorial tone in places. It also needs to be formatted properly. See the comment and links on its talk page and the template on your user talk page. I don't want to discourage you, but it is only fair to be honest about its current shortcomings, all of which are quite easily fixable. Adrian M. H. 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Adrian M. H. I will fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkinGordonAtwell (talk • contribs)

International Armoring Corporation

I need help inserting pictures and more text to the International Armoring Corporation article. The company has many references and news feeds (www.internationalarmoringcorporation.com). Just need more feed back on how to expand the article and help it be a little more polished. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IACarmormax (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 July 2007

It needs some cleanup. There are issues with URLs in the lead, missing/malformed headings, an example image gallery, and so on. There is a significant non-neutral advertorial issue, too, with lines like:

With continual improvements to it's proprietary armoring material ARMORMAX (lightest and most ballistically resistant opaque armor available) and the ELITUS armoring system, there is no comparison!

It also needs more/better refs for some of its statements (and to better establish notability). Adrian M. H. 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hylomorphism

I recently made some major expansions to the hylomorphism article. Feedback is appreciated. (I want to be sure I got Aristotle right.)

Oops. Forgot signature. --Phatius McBluff 18:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mammal-like reptiles

From the article on "mammal-like reptiles:" "It has been suggested that this article [Mammal-like reptiles] or section be merged with Synapsida." This is a common point of view of someone who is conversant with a subject. However, not everyone is so familiar with this topic as to associate mammal-like reptiles with sinapsida; that's why they look up "mammal-like reptiles" in an encyclopedia. These points are true in general as well. By all means, incorporate the information in this article in Synapsia, but leave "mammal-like reptiles" as a separate, searchable topic. A short paragraph in "mammal-like reptiles" detailing their relationship to synapsida and a link to Synapsida would suffice.

Mike Sarles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.225.73 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2007

You may wish to post this at a more appropriate project page, such as VPM, or leave a message at a relevant WikiProject. RFF is for feedback about your contributions to a specified article. Adrian M. H. 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Occupational Health & Safety Management System

Can someone create a new page for this topic? This is a school assignment and I need HELP! Please don't send me to yet another page of useless information. Thank you.

69.19.14.17 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)ehsoutlaw

Wikipedia's editors are not here to do your work for you. And RFF would not be the place for such requests anyway. Adrian M. H. 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Abidjan article rewritten from the french version at User:Mayalekhni/Abidjan.

Hello ppl,
i have translated the Abidjan page from the french to the english version as there was a request for translation on it, the user who requested it felt that the english version we currently have was not informative enough, i found the same opinion reflected on the current article's talk page as well.

being new to wikipedia however, i have actually created it as a user:subpage @ User:Mayalekhni/Abidjan instead of in the main namespace. as you will notice, i have not yet wikified it in terms of links, pictures etc, as what i am looking for at the moment is your opinion of whether it is indeed better than the current english version. if this is the case, i can work on creating the links and adding in the images etc.

please advice as soon as possible, thanks! --Mayalekhni 12:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now updated the englis version as well, please look at the article at Abidjan. your feedback would be appreciated! Thanks.--Mayalekhni 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oak Park, Illinois

Hey all, Oak Park is a lovely, historic town, and I feel that the article doesn't entirely do it justice. I've done a bit of work, but I'd love some experienced editors to take a look. I plan to include a section soon about how Oak Park is very socially progressive, being one of the first towns in the country to approve domestic partnerships. Please help me improve the article to at least Good status, and hey, maybe we could have it featured one day! Thanks in advance! GlassCobra 05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nous#Greek Orthodox Christianity

I'm not the author of this section which was created in the last week. I believe there are big copyediting and grammar issues (fragmented sentences), and POV issues (where religious opinion are being stated as fact). I have a bad history with the editor who made these edits, and I do not want another run in. So I am asking if an uninvolved third party could just look over this section for grammar and POV issues. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c [talk] 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew c! RFF is for editors, particularly newcomers, to seek feedback on articles they have written (or major edits they have made to existing articles). As an administrator, I presume you are familiar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which you should use - starting with mediation or an RFC. I hope you successfully resolve your dispute. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not currently in a dispute. There is just "bad blood" between LM and myself, and I do not want to confront that user. I was just seeing if someone could give that new addition a once over. Sorry if this was the wrong place for that. I am asking for feedback on a newly written section of an article. If it matters that I didn't write the section in question, then forgive me. If not, would you, or anyone else, looking it over for copy editing at the very least. Look at the last paragraph. Starts off with two sentence fragments. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, RFF is for feedback about your own contribution to a specified article, whatever it may be. That said, I took a quick look at your request back on the 9th. I opted not to reply, though (I avoid religion on WP, as I do in real life). My view of that paragraph, purely from an encyclopædic angle, is that it seems to be very preachy, unverified (unverifiable?), unencyclopædic, and biased. It reads like a sermon or something. But like I say, just my opinion. Adrian M. H. 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I've had a bit of a go at keeping the important meaning while cleaning up the grammar and NPOV-ifying. I might have subtly twisted some of the meaning, I'm not sure, but I don't think I have. It was a little impenetrable... SamBC 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dookie

I re-wrote the entire article for Green Day's third album, Dookie. I would like some feedback, and some help or something telling me what to do, fix, etc. to make it better. Thanks! Xihix 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty good article, on the whole. I have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb to improve the grammar in certain places, fix some inconsistency and errors in punctuation, and correctly position some footnotes (after punctuation). I have also made one citation request. With just a little more work, this could be put forward as a candidate for GA, and much of any polishing that may be required will be raised for your attention during the review. Adrian M. H. 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot man! I added a citation that you requested, too. I'll try to see if there is anything else I can do, and request for it to be a candidate for GA. Xihix 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. It's nice when the feedback gets feedback. Good luck with GA. It can take a while bacause of the perpetual backlog, so nominate it soon. Adrian M. H. 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It obtained a GA late last night. I have also found another dedicated editor, who also likes the album, who says he will contribute significantly. Thanks a lot for what you did earlier! Xihix 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, well done! Adrian M. H. 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cabrils

May anyone give a check, and maybe correct, this new article I've translated from Catalan? Thanks in advance!--Paco ✉ 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed up some of the spelling and translating mistakes - I've also copyedited and rewritten other parts of it, so the article looks quite good now. Hope you like what I've done! Cheers, Spawn Man 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Angloromani Language

Hi, I have expanded this article Angloromani language considerably, please review and remove from stub status if ok. Please provide any feedback/suggestions on my talk page, if possible, thank you!--Mayalekhni 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this is not a stub. In future, you can use your judgment and change status and tags as required (within reason). I removed the stub tags for you. Adrian M. H. 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is clearly more of a start or B class article. Spawn Man 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added {{WP Languages}} to the talk page. Adrian M. H. 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! When I took up expanding it it was a One paragraph explanatin of what anglo romani means. I expanded it to its current length, but was not too sure whether i can remove the stub status or does it need to be done by admin (or someone!). Thanks, once again.--Mayalekhni 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrid Young is far from complete, what now?

Astrid Young is a singer/songwriter, and player of many instruments (and, coincidentally, my very first article). I think it might be done enough to remove the stub tag, but I still know that it could be better. I already know I need to get a good free use image for her, but what else could I do to groom this into at least a ?? --Spazure 08:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations should go before punctuation - It's late, so I haven't looked through the article fully, but that's just a minor thing which can be easily fixed from glancing at it... Spawn Man 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they have to be positioned after punctuation. Adrian M. H. 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, sorry - it was late & I put before instead of after lol.... Spawn Man 23:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that in the manual of style. I thought I put them all after, but I'll look it back over to make sure. I may have written part of it before I read the manual, so that may be all that happened. Thanks for the keen eye! Spazure 04:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamic mythology

I'm no expert on Islam, but I knew the Islamic mythology article needed to be expanded. So I added to it what I knew about Islam pertaining to the subject of mythology. I realize that, because I'm not terribly familiar with Islamic tradition, I may have put undue weight on certain topics while not even mentioning other important ones. Any feedback is appreciated. --Phatius McBluff 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rife

Can somebody fix the Royal Rife article. The article has become an embarrassment to Wikipedia: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/this_is_why_you_should_never_s_1.php

The previous version of the article had neutrality, original research and unverified tags. But, all these tags were removed later. These tags have been put back, after scienceblogs.com post received widespread attention among the science bloggers, the Wikipedia critics and others. 202.54.176.51 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RFF is intended to provide feedback about contributions to a specified article. If you wish to draw an issue to the attention of other editors, you can use the appropriate section of the Village Pump (Assistance in this case). Adrian M. H. 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Loop Cards

Hi As it is my first go at contributing, I'm not sure if I used the most user-friendly format [PDF] and also how long it will take before it appears on the site. [I tried "Loop Cards" as a search item just now and it did not come up!] Cheers Adrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdriPinel (talk • contribs) 12:44, 24 July 2007

There is no article at Loop Cards, but I see from your contribs that you have uploaded a PDF file to the server. Uploads are for images, sounds and video clips (where strictly appropriate) for use in articles; not for documents. To begin learning how to contribute, please view the links on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Light Children

After contributing the Light Children article, it was tagged as needing to be wikified. I am not certain what needs to be done to make the article compliant with Wiki standards. Can anybody help? There have been several articles written about the 'Light Children' graphic novel project in internationally published magazines. The facts presented in its Wiki entry are clear, unbiased, and brief. However, because I am the artist hired to produce the art in the book, I believe that the entry is being flagged as self promotional. Since the information presented is non-biased and does not use any promotional language, I am concerned that this flagging is unfair. I have repeatedly edited the entry to try and make it 100% neutral in content and I have cited the references necessary to validate the information presented. Please help me to understand how to correct this problem.

Thank you for your time and consideration, Kyletw 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kyletw! Wikifying means addding wikilinks and formatting. To add a wikilink, enclose the text in double square brackets. For example, [[I Not Stupid]] produces I Not Stupid. If the text you wish to wikilink differs from the name of the article you are linking to, in between the double square brackets, type the name of the article you are linking to, followed by a pipe (|), and the text you wish to wikilink. For example, [[I Not Stupid|a Singaporean movie]] produces the text a Singaporean movie, but clicking on the wikilink takes you to an article entitled I Not Stupid. However, remember to only make links that are relevant to the context.
Formatting an article requires knowledge of wiki markup, which can be quite difficult to learn. Don't worry, though - we have several useful guides to help you get started. Moreover, you may wish to add relevant categories to the article, to make it easier to find.
As the artist hired to produce the art in the book, you have a conflict of interest. Is Light Children notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article? If not, the article may be nominated for deletion. The best way to establish Light Children's notability is by providing references to reliable sources. You may also find Wikipedia's guide keepng articles unbiased useful.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
See also WP:NCH. Adrian M. H. 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Laurie Halse Anderson

Laurie Halse Anderson, I believe, is now ready for peer review. I completely revamped it, removing all non-neutral comments and wikifying and citing references for everything on the page. I was referred to her biography's page thanks to an editing bot...and it was barely a suitable wiki page, in my opinion, of course, and meaning no offense. But now, it has, I think, all the elements of a proper biography (Writer Infobox, References section, etc.), and so is now ready to be reviewed and scored. Thank you! --Carla Hufstedler 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A few things need attention:
  • After the lead, there is nothing but lists. It really needs to be structured like a proper article, making better use of the lead.
  • Most of the refs are primary, which fails WP:V. Primary sources should come second to secondary sources and cannot be relied upon solely or primarily for either verification or the establishment of notability. They also need more fields, akin to those at WP:CITET. (Note: The templates are entirely optional, but should be viewed to inform your layout).
  • Ref #4 should be changed for a more reliable source; the IMDB is not considered reliable (see WT:RS).
  • Too many red links. Consider seriously whether these items actually deserve articles; if they do not, then the red link is forever redundant. Remember that notability is not inherited.
  • The Genre links in the infobox need to be corrected. I suspect that you intended to link to each genre.

Adrian M. H. 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback, Adrian. I'll go down your list and make these updates/changes ASAP. I really appreciate the advice and help!

Carla Hufstedler 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Post on my talk page if you have any further questions. Adrian M. H. 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

National Sleepy Head Day

Pasted from EA/R:

Hi there, i've not long started doing edits for Wikipedia, but i just need someone to check over the first article i made. It's at National Sleepy Head Day. I know it's only a stub but any constructive criticism would help as i'm looking to start a requested article that is likely to be much more in-depth. Thanks Bizzmag 17:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a good start. Neutral, factual, trimmed of all fluff, suitably referenced per V, OR and RS. Meets WP:N. I made a few MoS edits, such as the wikilinked date to trigger user prefs and the section heading for the footnotes. The footnotes themselves are now better formatted per CITET. Just needs expansion now! Adrian M. H. 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pasted from my talk page:

thanks a lot for your help, i will keep trying to expand it but there doesn't seem to be very much of it about on the internet. I guess i'll just have to dig a bit deeper. Anyway yeah, thanks! Bizzmag 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can bring the article to the attention of a Finnish editor (there are quite a few) who may know of some offline sources. I can imagine that there won't be very many such sources available in your locale. Adrian M. H. 20:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maiden ODI Fifty

Have created this stub, would be useful if someone could just scan it and see if its ok. Thanks. Bizzmag 20:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a pretty good little stub. Most of my comments about the above article are relevant here also. My only concern is that this could be an inadvertent content fork that duplicates information from another, more comprehensive cricketing article. Or is at least a candidate for a merger into such an article. I'm no expert when it comes to cricket, but there is WikiProject Cricket, so that's a good place to visit for info and assistance. I have added {{WikiProject Cricket}} to this article's talk page. Adrian M. H. 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Article has been {{prod}}ed. Reasons are there. For further discussion, I suggest you take it to WT:CRIC. —Moondyne 10:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dieselboy

I've done some major housekeeping on this article and tried to remove a lot of POV statements so that maybe we can get rid of the "Reads like a Resume" tag. Can somebody check it out for me? --Deptstoremook 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CNN-YouTube Presidential Debates

I have expanded the article (diff) and listed it here, hoping to get some advice on how to improve it. Pants(T) 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

North Sea

This article is being worked upon, it is currently being nominated as a Article Creation and Improvement Drive article However, it has been dinged with error templates: Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 and All articles with unsourced statements . I have tried to add sources/references to statements/sections, but I don't know if they are adequate, enough, and how to discuss, review the template or who posted the template or if a bot posted the template. How do I request the template removal? I have also tried to do a DYK as it has expanded fivefold in five days, but these templates regarding souces/references should be addressed, but how??? Whom do I talk to . SriMesh | talk 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would put your comments on the talk page for that article. If the person posting the template has that page on their watch list they should see the change and be able to reply. If it's not on their watch list and you don't get any negative feedback from other parties, then, personally, I'd feel free to remove the template and say something like "Removing template per talk page" in the edit summary. — RJH (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The reference tag issue has been resolved, and the article is still growing and reaching forward to feature status. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Iowa Hawkeyes football from 1889 to 1899

I recently put this article up for peer review but no one has replied yet. Hopefully here I can get some advice on how to improve this article. My hopes are to get it up to good article status. Suggestions? DanThaMan17 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a few comments to the talk page. I hope they are of some help. Good luck. SriMesh | talk 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Megan Zheng

Over the last 3 days, I significantly expanded Megan Zheng, and have just nominated it for DYK. I would appreciate any suggestions for improving the article, so that the nomination is successful, and Megan Zheng becomes my third DYK. As all my references are newspaper articles, I'm concerned that the article may have a newspaper article-like tone. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (creator of RFF)

Megan Zheng has become my third DYK, but I'd still appreciate feedback and suggestions that would help me improve the article (although I doubt it can achieve GA status). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a few comments to the talk page. I hope they are of some help. Good luck. SriMesh | talk 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Community website link

Recently I updated information about a website which provides a directory of resources for families in Halton, Oakville, Milton, and Burlington, Ontario. This website provides a useful source of activity ideas, events and information; much of which are non-profit organizations. As with a local paper, this site provides a tool for visitors to access their community.

I would like permission to re-enter this information into the Halton Region page, realizing that adding a link in each city may be accessive.

Here is the 'dif' link for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_Municipality_of_Halton%2C_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=131692018

ParentInProgress 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Parrsboro, Nova Scotia

I have made an effort to improve the quality of Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, and would like some feedback. This [26] is the page before I started editing it. Andrew647 19:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Health Hazards of Carbonated Drinks

Please enable feedback of comments about above article. Also, is there anything else I need to do for acceptance of article? And do I automatically get informed of its acceptance?

Thanks

Dr Edward Willhoft

--Edward Willhoft 08:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When I attempted to wikilink your title per the instructions for this page, I got a red link, so you'll have to tell me what you're on about. If you are not actually seeking feedback about your contribution to a particular article, then this question really belongs elsewhere, but until I know what you are asking, I can't help. Adrian M. H. 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Edward Willhoft's post at the Help desk, the article he is requesting feedback on has been deleted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the article either. If it is reposted, please publicize it as I would be interested to read & review. 08:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC) <The preceding incorrectly signed comment was left by VisitorTalk>

When editors post asking for feedback but fail to include a link, industrious respondents can find the article in question (assuming it hasn't been deleted, as this one was), by checking the contributions of the posting editor. It's regrettable that both of this editor's articles were deleted, hopefully he won't give up and will create articles that conform sufficiently to WP's norms, or will have fun contributing to existing articles. Anchoress 08:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

University of Saskatchewan

Have been working on this article, and comparing it to other University articles which have reached feature status. Would like to get the U of S to feature status as well, but find, every new concept requires a new article which provides a main article for the sections in U of S, but all these tangents do not help the U of S article to achieve feature status. How do I improve my focus from creating articles to refining the editing of an article? SriMesh | talk 02:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend using the article about UCLA as a template. You can use that article's table of contents as a guideline to reorganizing your article. VisitorTalk 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Luis Federico Leloir

Can someone review and help clean things up from this article? I just translated it from the Spanish edition, where it was a featured article.

You re-organised the Spanish article to English in a tidier format, and incorporated the trivia into the text which works much better. SriMesh | talk 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice article. What languages did he use? Did he do his work in the language of whatever country he was in at the time? Were his publications all in his native tongue? VisitorTalk 09:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to ice-minus bacteria wanted.

ice-minus bacteria is a genetically altered version of the P. syringae. It has a surface protein producing gene removed. The surface protein is usually used to aid in ice formation, thus "ice-minus" bacteria prevents frost development on plants.

Please help me make this article better!

Responding to your feedback request: The article gives a good overview of the subject that is understandable by a layman. Is the process patented? Are there legal issues involved in sale of ice-minus-treated plants, or in their use for food? Are their certain countries where the process is widespread, others that are cold enough for frost but where the process is virtually unknown? VisitorTalk 08:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quills

Hi there! I've been working on the Quills film article pretty extensively for the last week or so, and as a novice editor, I'd like to make sure I'm on the right track and everything looks and sounds good. Any comments/suggestions/critique would be much appreciated! Here's the article when I started [27] and here it is now [28]. Thank you in advance!

I think the title should be Quills (film) so that people expecting an article about animals structures or writing implements can use a disambiguation page. I also recommend highlighting the beginning and end of the spoilers in the plot summary, so that people who like to be surprised by developments in a movie can skip that section of the article. A link to a page with more information about the soundtrack album would be a nice touch. Otherwise, it looks like a comprehensive article. I like your including the comment in the introduction about historical accuracy vs. the filmmakers' intentions. VisitorTalk 08:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rinkhals (Hemachatus haemachatus)

Rinkhals (Hemachatus haemachatus)- request feedback on newly created article.

Profberger 06:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a template for articles about animal species? This article seems incomplete, but as I'm not a biologist, I'm not sure what else should be in it. VisitorTalk 08:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

rewrite of stack overflow stub, still in sandbox here User:Abaddon314159/sandbox

I just did a major overhaul and expantion of the Stack overflow article here to include lots more info, sources, and some original visual aids I made for the topic. Its my first article though so before I clobber the existing stub with this I'd like get some feedback from more experienced editors. The new version is still in my sandbox here --Michael Lynn 10:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it and reply on either here or on your talk page later this evening. Looks promising at first glance. Adrian M. H. 13:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There is some good material there and it is well written. However, it desperately lacks references. See WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS if you haven't already, and I recommend looking over their talk pages for further insight. As it stands, this article at least deserves some unsightly tags and could go to AFD. There is some good stuff there in kit form, but the policy failures need to be sorted as a priority. Adrian M. H. 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I get you (or anyone else) to put some [citation needed] tags in where you think I need further citations and I'll get to it, because at present I don't see many uncited claims in the page (i mean its got almost 30 sources for a little more than a page of text)... --Michael Lynn 01:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is fine, but I'm not sure if the introductory sentance is accurate. "In software, a stack overflow occurs when a program reads from or writes to an invalid memory address on the program's call stack." My understanding is that a stack overflow only occurs on the attempt to WRITE more information than the stack can contain; that writing to an invalid address inside the stack would be a bug, but not a stack overflow; and that no form of reading from a stack can cause a stack overflow error. If this is correct, please revise: "In software, a stack overflow occurs when a program attempts to write more information to the program's call stack than the stack can contain." If my understanding is incorrect, then the article needs to explain why. I would also like to see a section about how managed code runtime virtual machines, such as the Java Virtual Machine and the Common Language Runtime, prevent stack overflows. 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC) <The preceding incorrectly signed comment was left by VisitorTalk>
Thanks for the feedback, I was sort of iffy on whether or not to include reads in the definition, because traditionally that is not what we think of as an overflow, the reason I included it is that so many of my sources define a stack overflow (or alternatively a stack buffer overflow, which is likely what this article will be titled due to some conflict on the issue), as an invalid (i.e. out of bounds) "access" of memory...I interpret that as either a read or a write...but you are right, it seems to me that write makes more sense in this context, at the very least it wouldnt be incorrect just perhaps missing a bit...I'll make that change when I get some free time...as to the section on Java and the like I'll need to do a bit of research into that topic, but you're right that might be an interesting section to include...thanks for the comment --Michael Lynn 09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Where in Stack overflow are there any references or even sources? Adrian M. H. 13:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There isn't, not a one, thats part of why I was rewriting it in the first place ;), the confusion here is that its still in my sandbox (see title) :)...User:Abaddon314159/sandbox the new one has lots of sources --Michael Lynn 09:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You should have transferred your version before requesting feedback, ideally, because we are here to comment on articles, not sandboxes. If you felt that doing so might be premature, don't hold back, because anything that needs fixing can be fixed. It is better to use new article content as soon as possible and that is what I had expected to see. Adrian M. H. 10:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Workbench (woodworking)

I have lots of experience with the subject, but this is my first attempt at a wikipedia article. Feedback requested. Bob 02:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Two issues really jump out, one that is comparatively minor and one that is major. The section headings are non-standard in places, which is readily fixed. The big issue is the failure of WP:V, with no references at all, not even a list of sources. Other than that, it is not a bad first effort, but the verifiability needs to be fixed ASAP. Adrian M. H. 09:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm working on the references and should have something by the end of the day. No doubt it will only be a start. Bob 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reduced the size of your thumbnails, although you have far too many images anyway. And what are you going to do about Workbench, from which Workbench (woodworking) is an expanded content fork? Adrian M. H. 09:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what to do about the main Workbench article. This article describes woodworker's workbenches - which is a large specific area but doesn't include other types of workbenches such as machinist, gardeners, etc. So I just put a link in the main workbench article to here. What would be a better way? Bob 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand about the number if images being too many. I used images that specifically illustrated the parts and devices mentioned - generally one for each. I figured that the illustrations were much better than an attempt to simply describe the items. How should I do it different? Bob 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In an encyclopædia, an excessive amount of images (very excessive in size and quantity in this case) is not appropriate. The best articles have only a small number of well placed images because this is supposed to be about the writing and images distract from the text. You really should cut some of them out. Expanded content forks are not generally appropriate, at least not in this context. A good example of expanded content forks can be found in articles such as World War II, in which sections are often led by main article: Example. You cannot get to that stage, at least not yet, because there is not enough material. Your most appropriate course of action is to merge your content into the original article, making the new title a redirect, and use what you have to improve and expand that article. There is too little difference between the different uses (metalwork and woodwork) to warrant separate articles. If the new article went to AFD because of its lack of sources (which in practice, is unlikely, but I am using it as an example) the consensus would ask for a merger. Adrian M. H. 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a list of references. Following the guidance in Wikipedia:Citing sources, I just added the references that I used to learn all this stuff at the bottom. If I understood correctly, in-line sources make sense when a particular statement is likely to be challenged - and this article doesn't lend itself to much controversy. Is it any Better? Worse? Hopeless? Bob 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Based on your advice I've moved most of the illustrations to a gallery. Is it still too much? Bob 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Roy Masters (commentator)

I made a major revision to this article about a currently living person. My revision reused some material from the existing article. The previous version was very disorganized. The talk page is primarily used by people either reciting their admiration for Roy's comments and their opinion of what he really meant, or arguing at length about why they consider his comments to be reprehensible and dangerous. I believe the article should summarize the man's biography, work, and major themes. I believe the article should provide links (but not endless details) for those who wish to further explore either the commentator or his detractors. This is my first Wikipedia article and I would welcome constructive comments, especially about whether I succeeded at providing a neutral point of view in my version. Also, there is a conflict between the wording in the disambiguation page - "Roy Masters (Radio Presenter)" - and the biography page itself - "Roy Masters (Commentator)" and I wonder if they need to match. I believe Commentator is the more useful term, as he is an author, public speaker, and minister as well as a radio presenter, and the radio show came after and was based on his earlier in-person work as a preacher and counselor. VisitorTalk 09:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry and the Potters

I've done a major re-write of this page but so far very little response by other editors. One editor liked the lyrics and reception section but found the career section awkward. Since then, I've revised again including breaking it up into sub-headings and shortening sentences. If as an editor this topic is new to you, does the article read well? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New topic to me. The subject is interesting, and I believe you have enough research. The article could use another round of rewriting and editing. For example, "a concert set for the DeGeorge family’s back-yard shed which fell through" could be read as meaning the shed collapsed, rather than people didn't show up for the concert. What is "political" about promoting literacy? The organization of the article is not quite chronological, but also not quite thematic. Descriptions of concerts, touring, press response, recording, and audio response are somewhat grouped into sections, but also mixed together. The article reminded me of a person who is enthusiastically excited about a new discovery, and who hasn't yet caught enough breath to tell the whole story in a step by step manner.

For a well edited band article, try the one on Rush (Band). Notice the sections: Band members; Musical styles and influences; History; Reputation; Live performances. Obviously for a younger band like Harry, there would not be as much to say about each of these areas as for a band with Rush's body of work, but the framework would still be useful. From Discography on down your article seems fine - but my goodness, no "see also" reference to Harry Potter himself? VisitorTalk 04:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lanner Gorge

Request for feedback on Lanner Gorge which was created at the request of an editor to form a link with my article Makuleke (I'm a new contributor so still learning). If this is ok, I'll add Luvuvhu River as requested.

Profberger 09:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice start. I think you could have a longer introduction which gives more of an overview: mention it's in South Africa, comment briefly on the geology, floods, fossils, and wildlife, and mention whether it is important as a tourist area or a national park. A good article to use as a model would be the one on the American Grand Canyon. VisitorTalk 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Generation Y

Generation Y is in desperate need of help. It is almost entirely original research and uncited claims. I feel like just cutting and slashing most of its content, but thought it might benefit from review by other editors first. Please advise. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be trimmed to some extent anyway and removing unreferenced material is a good way to do it. There is some decent material there; it just some fluff taken out and citations added. Adrian M. H. 00:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Generation Y is in desperate need of help." At first I thought that was intended as a sociological observation, rather than a comment on the article. The article needs to be reconsidered. It is extremely negative in tone: uncertainty about how demographers label Generation Y; a list of social problems and character flaws associated with Generation Y; a list of pop culture items associated with Generation Y; and, most telling, a complete lack of anything positive to say about this generation as individuals or a social force good for anything but consuming pop culture, creating social problems, and confusing demographers. It's not hard to find at least a few sources propounding the increased plurality, openness, speedy adoption of new technology, and comfort with high-tech innovation that some say characterize Generation Y in a positive way. There also is a complete absence of any consideration as to whether Generation Y is exclusively an artifact of socioeconomic forces in certain countries, or a worldwide phenomenon. I'm not a member of Generation Y by anyone's standards, but I am disappointed in this apparently pointless and whiny article. 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC) <The preceding incorrectly signed comment was left by VisitorTalk> Thanks for correcting the reference, I had not yet learned how to use four tildes as the time I left the comment. VisitorTalk 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I've moved large chunks of this article's original research to Talk:Generation Y/Original research. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The revised article is much better edited. However, it still has a very large block of assertions without any supporting references - about sociological cohort theory in general, and about GenY in particular. In the "Background" section, the article "Many Generation Y members are labeled..." should be moved to a different section, since this is assertion about GenY character rather than an overview of the sociological definition of the cohort. The revised article unfortunately continues to define GenY in terms of negativity, bad attitudes, technology that happened to be released and widely adopted by GenY - with most of the statements unsupported by any citations or research. Where is there anything positive about GenY or its unique perspective on life? Where are the sources for the sweeping generalizations about what they think about and about what other generations think of them? VisitorTalk 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seniors On Stage

How do we know when article will be published on line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorsonstage (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 August 2007

"We"? If you mean your edits to the sandbox at Wikipedia:Introduction, that will be wiped shortly (it's a sandbox, you see.....) To be honest, I'm not at all sure that the content that you have posted there is notable enough for inclusion, so if you did create an article about it, it might be speedied or Prodded. Incidentally, RFF is (as it says at the top) for getting feedback about your own work on a specified article that has been subject to some development. Adrian M. H. 17:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Peaches Geldof

  • I have recently taken partial responsibility for the wellbeing of this article, since a) it was in bad shape, and b) it would probably be a candidate for fairly high traffic, especially in Britain. While it remains a prime target for vandalism, I believe I have got rid of all the spurious rumour and libellous defamation, as well as making the article look a little bit pretty and sorting the references out in a organised way of which I am quietly proud. However, its not quite ready for peer review yet I don't think. Obviously it needs a picture, but can anyone give me some pointers on how to improve it quicksharp, I'd like to put it up for peer review probably within the month. Any help greatly appreciated. Jdcooper 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you add the picture, I recommend you go on to the peer review stage. Really, how much more can be said about a rich, wild young person who is famous for being a rich, wild young person? If there is something of notability or depth in her writing and broadcasting, other than their demonstrating that she is rich, wild, and young, then those notable items should be discussed in the article. As I'm not in the UK and am not interested in socialites, I had not heard of her before, so my apologies if there is more substance to her than I would guess from your article. VisitorTalk 05:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WSJT (Amateur radio software) rewritten

I have done a substantial rewrite (diff here) of WSJT (Amateur radio software), a piece of digital signal processing software used in amateur radio. The article now includes some history of the program, a new lede section, technical details about each communications mode in the software, a software infobox, and several sources. A more detailed log of my changes is available in the history of User:Iknowyourider/Workspace/WSJT (Amateur radio software)/Draft — I worked on the article in my userspace because I knew I would make it a lot messier before getting things back to something I'd like to see in the mainspace. Oh, I've also suggested some todos on the talk page.

I'd really appreciate any feedback on my changes, as this is the very first time I've done substantial article writing for Wikipedia. Thanks! ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article seems fine as is, although non-hams might appreciate a brief explanation of the terms "propogation" and "contact" as used in ham radio. Relevant "see also" items could include software radios in general, and ham radio software in general. Not all the sections refer to the bands which can be used. If radio hardware needs to have a particular type of interface to work with WSJT, that should be mentioned as well. VisitorTalk 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Castillo de Salas

I was reading about Maritime incidents in Spain and found that there was no entry in Wiki about this ship's disaster, so I took another disaster as a template and worked on it. I based it on a stub under the same category and probably what I have written continues to be a stub. It is my first article and perhaps the template I used was not the best, so I'm looking for pointers of what to do next, what could have been done better, etc.

Figarema 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Venezuela

I have added a great deal of material on the history of Venezuela. It is generally accurate and objective. but some bias does show. I would advice review and further editing. 122.163.181.21 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Dr. Carlos Ramirez-Faria, author of Concise Encyclopedia of World HistoryItalic text' and other works.

I know nothing at all about Venezuela so can't offer any advice as to content, but something that does catch my eye is that the article for Guyana has a lengthy section on boundary disputes with Venezuela, which the Venezuela article barely mentions. The History & Culture sections should probably be split into subsections as well as they're quite long. While the "Venezuelan's are the happiest people in the world" quote does have a source, it seems a bit of a dubious claim; in light of the fact that the same website claiming this also shows Venezuela as having the 4th highest murder rate in the world, the worst business efficiency rate in the world, only 95th in the world for adequate sanitation etc etc etc; I think a claim like this needs more evidence — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Elite Force II

Star Trek: Elite Force II is a sequel to Star Trek: Voyager: Elite Force first person shooter which both take place in fictional Star Trek universe. In my opinion the article can no longer be considered a stub - the Plot section has been expanded [29] and internal links have been added [30].

I'd like to find out what strengths and weaknesses the article has - NPOV in the plot section, further information which should be included in the article and other possibilities for improvement. If possible, add your rating into the template on the Talk page. Thank you. ILorbb | Talk 07:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the first thing that must be corrected: Cite your sources. Adrian M. H. 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Conveyed_concept

Looking for input/feedback on this article in Linguistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.183.192 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't give feedback on a non-existent article. KTC 03:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Referenced article was case sensitive- corrected

Maybe you could define the context in which the concept conveyed concept is used. In this case this would be linguistics? Maybe you could also add and wikilink the word Linguistics somewhere. – Ilse@ 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a context and a wikilink to Linguistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedosmann (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 August 2007

Golden Film

I would like to ask an English native speaker to check the article Golden Film on language and flow. The article has been peer reviewed in order to become A-class and this is the last remaining task of the current comments. Your help is most welcome! – Ilse@ 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My only comments would be:
  1. Change the "for the first 100,000 cinema tickets sold" in the lead paragraph to something along the lines of "selling over 100,000 cinema tickets" or "once it has sold 100,000 tickets" to make it clearer.
  2. Clarify somewhere whether all 100,000 tickets need to be sold in the Netherlands - if a Dutch film was unsuccessful domestically, but popular in another country, would it qualify?
  3. Clarify what criteria a film needs to meet to qualify (would an English-language film filmed in the Netherlands qualify? A Dutch-language film filmed in Belgium, Suriname etc?)
  4. I can't see any particular stylistic or grammatical problems in the article itself, although some of the sections could possibly do with expanding.
  5. Finally, I don't like the sentence "The Golden Film should bring good news about a film when the media attention for the film's release has stopped" as it's a bit unclear - does it mean that the award is intended to bring the film more publicity, or just intended to give the film's achievement official recognition — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Concerning 1, 3, and 5: I changed the wording to deal with the unclarities you pointed out, based on your suggestions
Concerning 2: the award section gives the information.
Concerning 4: great!
Thank you for your comments! – Ilse@ 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclogue

This is an article which "defines" what ecologes are, and is from the prologue by Alexander Barclay in his book written in 1570 which was titled, "Certayne Ecloges". While many articles mention that writers of old "wrote" ecologues, few bother to discuss what constitutes an ecologe other than to say that they are pastorial. And, the old spelling, ecologes, seems to have given way to ecologues. Here, Barclay provides not only a discussion of what an ecologe is but goes on to describe his writings.

The article may well be in the wrong place within Wikipedia and direction on how to properly place it is requested.

sidi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidi j mahtrow (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 June 2007

Please include a link to the article. VisitorTalk 09:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Found it at Eclogue. The article's a bit of a mess and violates NPOV ("wrote remarkable eclogues", "the whole pastoral genre was ripe for parody" etc), and whilst references are provided, with no way of checking them there's a whiff of WP:OR about the whole article. As an aside, I'd strongly suggest making Ecloge, Ecologe and Ecologue into redirects to this page to save anyone else the same wasted time I've just had. (You yourself use all three spellings above without once actually using the actual article title, so it's obviously an easy mistake to make!) — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Iridescent. The article should be reorganized to first define the literary form, then discuss notable examples of the form. References to sources should be put inline in the body text of the article. The entire poem on the talk page should be replaced to a citation where the entire poem can be found (perhaps Project Guttenberg might have it?). Look at the articles on Sonnet and Haiku for examples of more appropriately comprehensive articles about poetic forms. VisitorTalk 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States

This is an article, recently created by another, that I have edited with some frequency. I initially nominated the article for deletion because it had been heavily POV at one point, but the deletion failed after improvements were made. Having re-read this newly-revised article, I feel that it belongs within the History section of the osteopathic medicine article, or perhaps this article should be renamed to "the history of osteopathic medicine" and expanded. I recognize that these are all crucial events in the history of osteopathic medicine, and I think the title of this article should reflect this. The conflict between medicine and osteopathic medicine looms large in osteopathic medicine, but as you read the material, it becomes clear that it is far less relevant to the history of 'allopathic' medicine. Because I'm uncertain as to what non-medically-oriented people think about this, and because I (an M.D. student) have been involved in a conflict with another editor (an osteopathic medical student), I'm interested in getting independent feedback regarding the proper location of and title for this material. Thanks, Antelan talk 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend leaving this article as an independent article, but change the title using the phrase in the introduction: "schism between osteopathic and allopathic medicine." Add links to this article from discussions of the history of each type of medicine. Leave the detailed discussion of the schism outside of the overview of osteopathic medicine. In general, I believe that extensive discussion of controversy, schism, debunking, etc. should be outside of primary articles on topics. 08:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Updating to include my user ID. VisitorTalk 08:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a usual policy on this, but in this circumstance I agree with VisitorTalk. Controversy, schism, debunking between these two groups should receive a brief mention in each parent article of the groups involved, but really deserves its own article so as not to distract or detract or inflate the controversy in the parent articles.Touro OsteopathicFreak T 04:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, are you satisfied with leaving the article as a separate article, or do you want to leave this feedback request open for further comments? VisitorTalk 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade

I recently added a section to the Mircea Eliade article on Eliade's philosophical views. (Eliade was a historian of religion.) Click here to see the section. I have not yet received much feedback. I suspect that's because not many people are very familiar with Eliade. However, feedback would be appreciated. --Phatius McBluff 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, that's a long article! I'd strongly suggest cross-posting this to WPP; this is a very specialist piece of technical writing & they're likely to be the only people qualified to comment on it — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I recommend having the discussion of Eliade's philosophy put into a new article, separate from the biographical overview article. Not sure if hierophany would be the appropriate title for this article. Look at the article on Einstein for an example of how to keep the more technical material out of a general biography, while still noting its importance in the author's life. VisitorTalk 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Babylon 5: Legions of Fire - Out of the Darkness

I did a fairly major edit of the article by adding a detailed plot outline of the novel.

Here is the Diff

I am new to wikipedia so I would appreciate feedback regarding style, format and length. Also, since my native language is Russian, I'd appreciate comments regarding English, especially the usage of definite and indefinite articles.

Thanks, Nsk92 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate section about availability and pricing; availability is quite irrelevant to an encyclopædic article and mentioning the price goes against content guidelines per the MoS. Mention a price only when notable and pertinent, such as in Sunflowers (series of paintings). The next most obvious thing that jumped out at me is the exact same issue that is evident in an article a couple of sections below this: Cite your sources. On the upside, you have little to be concerned about with regard to your second language; it needs only minimal copy editing. One more thing that you can fix: view it in the edit window and you will see a swathe of truncated lines, which looks a mess and does nothing to assist editing. I fixed the first two paragraphs for you. Adrian M. H. 18:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Very good, thanks for the comments! Regarding the price and availability info, I basically agree with your opinion. I kept that section from the previous stub version of the page written by somebody else. At the time I did not give much thought to this issue. I just noticed that after your edit, someone (85.156.229.176) edited the page again and he/she added an "availability" section at the end of the page. I don't have particularly strong feelings about this issue, but I would appreciate if you take another look and see if you want to modify this last edit by 85.156.229.176.
Regarding citing the sources, could you suggest some specific places in the article where this might be appropriate? Most of what I wrote provides a detailed plot summary for which the reference is the book itself. There were a few places where some info from the TV episodes/B5 movies was mentioned and in such places I gave links to the articles for Wikipedia entries for these items. There was one specific fact for which I would like to get a good external reference but so far I could not find one on the web. This concerns the statement that the novel is considered "canonical" by J. Micahel Straczynski. This statement is being made (but without giving an external reference) at the main B5 novelization page. Thanks again, Nsk92 19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have just found a statement by Straczynski himself confirming the "canon" claim and I added a reference to it from the page. Nsk92 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In practice, there is probably little that you can do to reference a plot summary, though the strict interpretation would be that you are synthesising content from a primary source in a form of original research. Because OR is prohibited, it needs some verifiability. We have to avoid using other WP articles as sources because (a) that is self-referencing, which should always be avoided for reasons of respectability, and (b) the material may not be accurate unless it is itself properly referenced. So what you should do is try to find some outside references (secondary and reliable) that support the material. WP:V does not require that we provide citations for all material, but a complete lack of citations is definitely a bad thing. We discuss issues like this at length on the policy talk pages, and they are worth following. I reverted the anon edit; feel free to do the same if it returns. Adrian M. H. 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

R.M.R. Hall

I recently created this article about the late Linguistics professor from Queens College. I'm putting in as much information as I can, and earlier this week I got an email from another QC professor willing to assist! In the meantime, please let me know what you think of the article, and the best ways I can expand it. --Procrastinatrix 22:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Comparing the article to the one on Noam Chomsky, I see that you could include:
  • In the lead section, mention any notable theories, research, etc. that were Hall's key contributions to his field.
  • Expand the biographical section.
  • Discuss his work.
  • Discuss his influence.
  • Note any notable controversy if there was some.

Of course there will probably not be quite as much to say about someone who was not as much of a lighting rod for both praise and criticism as Chomsky. But the outline might be useful nonetheless. VisitorTalk 03:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Physical Geography

Hello, I have recently expanded the Physical geography article quite a bit and wanted to know of any other sections that could be included and what can be done to the present article to improve it thanks. AlexD 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Link to Diff

Nice use of pictures to illustrate some of the fields. Can you continue that for the whole list? I would also like to see a discussion of when "physical geography" was used as an umbrella term for all of these fields; is it currently the mainstream term to indicate all these fields; and how it relates to the term "natural history." VisitorTalk 03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you VisitorTalk for your feedback, I shall make a history section on physical geography in the article as this should allow for a link between 'natural history' and phys. geog. to be developed along with recent developments and its use as an umbrella term. AlexD 16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Severus Snape

A number of editors have been working away at this article, but we need fresh eyes to read it and see the problems we've become blind to. We'd appreciate any comment as we'd like to take it to Wikipedia:Good article candidates soon. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to say alot, but one thing I notice is there is alot of spaces after full stops missing. It looks crammed when there is no space after a full stop. Consider changing this, that's my feedback :) → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Meg & Dia

I recently did alot of additions to this article and to the albums they have made. To say there isn't much info about the band on the net, as they are a rather small band, I feel I did pretty well. I would like feedback on what could be improved. Please note:

  • Could I do it again, I would make less edits, but add the same content.
  • There isn't many sources I can find, but I think I have made good use of the ones I found.
  • I added the image of the band, and the images of two of the EPs.
  • I also created If You're Poor Find Something to Sue For, one of their albums.
  • This is what it was like before I started my major revamping.

Thanks for any constructive feedback, criticism, or whatever you decide to say! → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance fair

I started work on the rewrite about two weeks ago -- It was just too muddled pre-August 23rd. And tried to cut down on the number of images. Better? Artemis-Arethusa 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks alot better, try fixing the references so you can remove that tag from the top. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Real Time Opera (trying to avoid COI)

I'm hoping to avoid getting tagged for COI again. Could you please give me some pointers for Real Time Opera? Many thanks Vicvaughan 01:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, it still reads like an advert. The article has to be rewritten from a neutral point of view, to just say what the organisation does. Most importantly, it urgently needs independent, non-trivial sources for every statement; because Wikipedia's a tertiary source, we should only be reprinting things that other media have already said — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Flugpo

I am currently in the process of improving the article Flugpo, which is being recreated on User:Saracity123/Sandbox. The article has been greatly modified since being deleted and now better incorporates Wikipedia's policies. As I am greatly dependent on feedback to help further my knowledge of this interactive, I am definitely interested in any and all helpful suggestions you have. Thanks! Saracity123 10:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nadine Baggott

I've made extensive edits and corrections to this article, I'd specifically like someone to check it for NPOV. DMcMPO11AAUK 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mini blind

What do you guys think of this article? Mini blind. I think it needs a lot of work, or maybe should just be merged into window blind. What d'ya think?

I think the merge would be appropriate. Other than the size of the slats and their decorative look, is there anything about mini blinds that's really different than "full-size" horizontal window blinds? VisitorTalk 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep it. Obviously, someone went to a lot of effort on it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, effort has no bearing in mergers, redirects, deletions, and other procedural methods. Adrian M. H. 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
fair enough. i meant, someone spent a lot of productive effort on it, which resulted in what appears to be a high-quality article. --Steve, Sm8900 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

XSCapacity-Terminology -Freight and Manufactures Slang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XsCapacity

I wam wanting to insure that I did this wiki right, this is my first try

XsCapacity is a term being coined for the utilization of excess semi trailer space. This new term references the use of under utilized or excess capacity in semi-trailer space for the movement of cargo and freight around the country. The meaning of this title is two fold and is utilized in the marketing of this type of services by various entities including freight brokers, freight forwarders and other.

1. Creates a significant reduction in pollution by reducing the amount of trailers on the road at any given time.

2. Reduces the cost of manufacturing overhead by reducing the cost associated with the shipment of finished goods around the country.

XsCapacity is a shortened version of Excess Capacity and definition is defined the same as excess capacity published by Glossary of Industrial Organization Economics and Competition Law, compiled by R. S. Khemani and D. M. Shapiro, commissioned by the Directorate for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise Affairs, OECD, 1993.

Definition of Excess Capacity, the fully lengthened version of XsCapacity: Excess capacity refers to a situation where a firm is producing at a lower scale of output than it has been designed for, in this context the production of goods is the empty trailer space that is utilized by shippers in the reduction of cost and pollution.

Source Publication: Glossary of Industrial Organization Economics and Competition Law, compiled by R. S. Khemani and D. M. Shapiro, commissioned by the Directorate for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise Affairs, OECD, 1993.

I had heard of services like Consalidated Freightways' "CFS Moves You," but I didn't know there was a generic term for the service. Thanks for the article. VisitorTalk 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some new categories

Hi folks. How do you like these? did these myself. curious to get some feedback from some other editors. compliments welcomed, as well as constructive feedback. :-) thanks.

Category:Diplomatic conferences

Category:Political charters

Category:Star Trek starship simulators

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly not within the remit of RFF. Adrian M. H. 15:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh. ok, sorry. thanks for replying. anyway, hope you like these new categories? any random thoughts? :-) anyway, that'll be all from me. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Baal

Along with practices of human sacrifice sexuality, orgies, etc is the practice of cutting (1Kings18:28) with lancets, knives, which is now being practiced by youths of various countries.

Er... what's your question? — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm, this IP user hasn't even edited that article. So I feel this "comment" can be deleted now :) — jacĸrм (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kunichika

I have changed this article extensively and would welcome feedback. Carrie

The things that jump out to me are:
  1. The article is unreferenced aside from a single book;
  2. It contains some non-neutral statements ("At his worst, Kunichika's work was banal and derivative", "His appearance was shabby" etc) — these are statements of personal opinion, not fact. If critics said this you can mention this with an appropriate citation, but otherwise it's a non-neutral review;
  3. There's no list of works, or even a "he is best known for", for anyone wanting to see examples of his work;
  4. In my opinion, there should be a least a brief explanation as to how he differed from other Japanese artists of the period;
  5. I'm not convinced by the statement that "Kunichika was unique in that his output straddles the old and the new (Edo to Meiji eras) represented by his classical subject matter and his use of modern (western) materials" — while I don't know much about the subject and may be wrong, does this not apply equally well to the (probably better known) Hokusai?
Hope that helps — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have tried to address the issues you raised. Hokusai was an earlier artist who worked in a different genre. Kunichika does not have any famously recognizable prints, though his mature style is usually easily recognizable. He has only recently begun to be rehabilitated from a neglect of members of the Utagawa school. --Clhowson 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[31] I have added many more external links, some "see alsos" and a new category. I also clarified reason for only one source in bibliography. [32] Added picture to illustrate "beauties." [33] Added picture to illustrate "big head" portraits. Added info about student Toyohara Chikanobu. [34] Added portrait of Kunichika, more examples of his work, examples of his signatures. --Clhowson 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

History_of_East_Asia

Hi. I've tried to introduce a few stub remarks for the History of East Asia article. It is a challenging topic. There isn't a lot of scholarship about East Asian culture. However, there is still a common history shared by East Asian nations, even if it is not nearly as unified as the history of Europe. I hope that we can have a thorough article even 1/4 of the size of its European counterpart.

A few historical events that shaped the entire region:

Early History:

  • the start of Taoism and Confucianism and its spread throughout the region
  • the Mandate of Heaven, and how this affected notions of sovereignty and suzerainty for nearby powers.
  • the arrival of Buddhism from India and its spread throughout the region
  • the growth of the silk road and its effect on the region and its culture

"Middle" Ages:

  • the invention and spread of the stirrup, and its influence on regional warfare
  • the birth of the Chinese civil service and its influence on other governments in the region
  • the surge of neo-confucianism (I think this affected the whole region, but I'm not sure)
  • the advent and spread of gunpowder from China
  • the spread of printing technologies from China
  • the arrival of the Mongols
  • the arrival of the Europeans

Other General Requests

  • any events of regional significance in the industrial era onward
  • modernization of the region -- didn't this take place around the same time for most countries?
  • pre-history, like ancient nomadic tribes
  • wars from any time, if they had a significant regional impact

Experts on any of these topics would be helpful, especially if they can find interactions between East Asian peoples.

You should probably post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan etc as well (there's a full list of the regional WikiProjects here) as those are the pages the people with relevant experience/expertise are likely to be reading — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons and Marcus Dixon

Hello Wiki-experts! I'm still fairly new to creating new pages, the two above being my first attempts to break into creation from editing. A am not an expert on either subject and have had to research pretty much everything that's in these two articles.

Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons are an action group trying to save wild birds in Trafalgar Square, London from starvation due to recent legislation changes.
Marcus Dixon is a young man who was involved in a high profile rape case, who's conviction was overturned. I feel the article is worth due to the wide-spread notoriaty of the case.

I was wondering if you could have a look at them and let me know what I'm doing right, but especially what I'm doing wrong! Many Thanks LookingYourBest 09:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing that leaps out at me from the "pigeons" article is the sentence "STTSP members moved an area of the Square not under GLA jurisdiction"; since the GLA (Greater London Authority) is a devolved government body, all of London is under their jurisdiction aside from embassies and a few military sites. Since there are a few embassies on Trafalgar Square it is (just) possible that the group is operating in an extraterritorial enclave, but if so that's such an unusual situation you need to explain it; none of the three embassies there (Canada, Malaysia & South Africa) are of countries that seem likely to risk the diplomatic backlash of trying to enforce their own laws against the will of the host government. There is also a notability issue with this article, as I don't feel you demonstrate multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage of this organisation in the media.
It seems that part of the square (North Terrace) is under the jurisdiction of Westminster City Council and not the Unitary Authority. This is not uncommon, for example in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton are "Unitary Authorities" but Police and Fire services are still provided by Hampshire, but Hampshire does not control planning, education, trading standards etc in the unitary authorities. Searching "trafalgar square jurisdiction" on google / altavista throws up a couple of BBC articles discussing this case including one that contains the text "The north terrace is the only section of the landmark that does not fall under the control of the mayor - it comes under the jurisdiction of Westminster City Council." DMcMPO11AAUK 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the above is correct. The North Terrace is part of Westminster City Council, thus GLA have no jurisdiction on it. I've found and added a source from the Daily Mail as well as peice about the fact this has now also been banned. LookingYourBest 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The Marcus Dixon article has a lot of problems and I think it's likely to be deleted; please make sure you're familiar with WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLP1E before you work any further on this article. Not only is it dangerously close to an unsourced attack page (the seven references are misleading - two are from a self described Communist agit-prop agency, one is from Snopes which is definitely not a reliable source, and two are a duplication of the same reference to Oprah Winfrey's website) but there's nothing to suggest either that the case is particularly unusual (and for situations like this the article should be about the case, not the suspect), nor that there's anything notable about the suspect other than his involvement in the case — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for all your help! I think I understand - the Marcus Dixon case needs to be changed to be a page about the case itself ... although I can't think of name for it right now and I need to find more mention of the Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons in the media? I would have thought that the BBC would have been a good source? I think I may have read the GLA thing wrong ... but I'm sure that's what it said ... I'll check! Thanks again for the heads up on both articles! LookingYourBest 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Convention seems to favour a populist approach along the lines of Marcus Dixon trial, although I would have expected to see the formal name of the case (as used in case law) instead. WP:NC makes no specific prescriptions. Adrian M. H. 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed Marcus Dixon for deletion. Notability seems to be based on (a) criminal conviction (b) reversal of the conviction and (c) having been on a talk show. I don't believe this is sufficient notability (WP:BIO). DMcMPO11AAUK 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you on the above - if you put "Marcus Dixon" into google pretty much every entry on the first 3 pages is to do with this case! Millions of people world-wide have heard of this trial and imprisonment and I'm shocked it's never been mentioned in Wikipedia. As discussed above though, I agree it may not be suitable as a biography, but could be more appropriate as an article about the trial?! LookingYourBest 06:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The article really needs a picture of Trafalgar Square with the pigeons! While people who've been there easily remember the square and pigeons, those who haven't need to see what all the fuss is about. Should be easy enough to find a picture with suitable licensing. VisitorTalk 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't a suitable image at Commons, Iridescent might have one that he can upload. He has provided a lot of good photos of London. Adrian M. H. 15:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There are less that 400 pigeons left, though... that's the point! — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean, at the height of the pigeon population you'd have pictures of people COVERED in pigeons! I'm going to add this one;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:People_feeding_pigeons_in_Trafalgar_Square_c.1993.jpg until a more suitable one turns up! LookingYourBest 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The posture theory

"This article lacks information on the notability of the subject matter. Please help improve this article by providing context for a general audience, especially in the lead section."

What do you mean by "notablity"?

I am eager to learn!Paula Syptak Price 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

RFF is not the appropriate venue for questions about editing, which should be clear from its description in the header. You need to know about notability in order to contribute, as it is one of the most basic and fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. Please take careful note of the links that I placed on your talk page on the 24th, because they answer this very question and take you to the appropriate venues for questions such as this. Adrian M. H. 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

References and links

This article on a band or other musical ensemble is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

</nowiki>

Maybe now you see why I made it here and not an actual article. What can I add to the article to make it more notable? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have omitted some important information, this does not meet the notability guidelines. This band has not had/done one or more of the following:
  1. Released at least two albums on a recognised label
  2. Been on a national or international tour that has featured in reliable independent sources
  3. Been the subject of editorial in such sources (passing mentions not accepted)
  4. Had a chart presence or a gold release
  5. Had a notable member (notability is not normally inherited, so I don't know why this got through)
  6. Represented the vanguard of a notable style
  7. Had a major award nomination
  8. Had repeated and regular national airplay
  9. Placed in a music competition (that's a really lax criterion, in my opinion)
  10. Been used for a notable TV show or film
  11. Been the subject of a music documentary or similar programme
Or any of the five points in the Others section of WP:MUSIC. The only sources that you have are considered unacceptable as references. Adrian M. H. 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Efficas Inc and Efficas Care

Dear Moderator,

I wish to contest the immediate block that continues to impede my posting of information to Wikipedia about a medical food called Efficas Care™, and the company that produces it, Efficas Inc.

After a first set of flags on these contributions, we have made significant edits to reduce “marketing” type language. These entries are purely informational at this point, and include proper academic references from peer-reviewed publications, both internal and external links and historical references that set these entries in a class comparable to others you have posted. And yet, when trying to re-post, the entries were blocked before the content could possibly even have been reviewed. In addition, I have seen similar-type medical product entries on Wikipedia such as the Restylane stub that have not been flagged.

As a registered dietitian, I feel the essential fatty acids available in this gel are an important natural remedy for allergy and asthma sufferers. I see that Restylane is classified under “WikiProject: Medicine” and the write-up is in a format that is considered a “style guideline” by the Wikipedia community. Can you please advise whether this is a more appropriate path/classification for Efficas Care and Efficas, Inc.?

Any insight you can offer into how I may be able to post information on Efficas Care and Efficas Inc. for the Wikipedia community is much appreciated.

Thank you for your consideration.

I assume you are User:Wendyweiss123 or User:Dean Stull. I suggest you familiarise yourself with What Wikipedia is not. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal web host; if you are looking for somewhere to host advertising for your company I would suggest a commercial ISP, and if you are looking to post your resume for free, might I suggest Myspace. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jubb Yussef (Joseph's Well)

This is a description of an archeological site in Galilee. I have tried to follow the Wikipedia conventions as best I can, and I intend to go back and improve the links within the page, but would appreciate some feedback about (a) its length and (b) its structure. Comparing it to other archeological articles it seems rather long, but on the other hand the technical detail about its history and construction are useful to anyone really interested in this kind of site.

2 days later: I'm finding this difficult. The page can be accessed through its URL (so it has been saved and exists) but not through the normal Wikipedia search box. Andrew 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Andrewfwilson

As with many searchable databases, it takes days or weeks for new changes to take effect. I will look at the article itself when I have more time. Adrian M. H. 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene Tierney

How do I add references.I am newto all this. I belive I have the artical in good shape —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.52.86 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2007

Questions such as this should be posted at the Help Desk or one of the alternative venues such as NCH. See WP:FN and WP:HARV. Adrian M. H. 13:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alan Hays

I created the controversy section, though some anonymous users claim that it is inappropriate and/or slander. The section is referenced however, and I tried to maintain NPOV. Take a look at the discussion page. What do others think? Inappropriate/slander or appropriate? -- WiccaIrish 04:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that quite regardless of whether it violates WP:BLP (which it does), it is ridiculous for three lines of the article to cover the man's career and the remaining 90%+ of the article to be a long, virtually unsourced and weasel-worded attack page. (I can't think of the last time I saw so many "allegedly"s in a single article, while three (and possibly all four) of the four 'references' are blogs and not reliable sources and should not be being used.) Your comments on the discussion page seem to suggest you think using the word "allegedly" is a good thing. This page as it stands fails WP:BIO top-to-bottom and needs a complete rewrite — and sourcing from reliable sources to remain in anything resembling this form. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have appreciated a nicer response. However, it is true that two of the references are blogs. I changed one of them to the source (aidshealth.org). I can take out the other and the statement it sources although it is apart of the Miami Herald website, with the article authored by a staff writer. According to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_soi-disant.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported, "alleged" and allegedly" are not that bad. I can remove them though. But you've got to be kidding me, that section only has *two* "alleged" and *one* "allegedly." I'm sorry but if you've never read anything that had three inflected forms of "allege," or any other word for that matter, you haven't read much. -- WiccaIrish 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Remulla

I dunno, but the article was blatantly biased; my dad was a campaign manager of his, but since Wikipedia enforces a NPOV guideline, then a complete or at least partial revision of this article is necessary - in fact, the article wasn't written in typical Wikipedia fashion when I first saw it... Blake Gripling 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Knife Making

I came across this article a while back and was intrigued as it should detail one of my hobbies but it fails to I think. My personal contributions so far have been to move the article and other major edits such as condensing list and sections of undeveloped sub-points. I have been debating about scrapping most of the metal lists and handle materials and writing a description of the process from my own experience but I am not sure if that would be appropriate or not. Thanks for the helpJunolupus 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Three points obviously spring to mind. Firstly, list are (for the most part) really bad things. They are a cop-out solution for editors who cannot write encyclopædic prose. They should be kept to an absolute minimum within articles because long and/or numerous lists are boring for readers and lack detail and context. It needs cleanup work to reduce the listcruft and reduce the number of sections, which are far too numerous (even if they all had content, they would still need to be rationalised). Secondly, you cannot write anything "from your own experience". Finally, where are the references? Without citing its sources, it fails WP:V, so whatever you write will need to be verified by sources. Adrian M. H. 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK so NOR here thanks for the heads up and I think that I will take out all the metal lists and try to start from a much smaller article. Does it seem appropriate (for the sake of simplicity) to document main methods? There is a guide to properly citing sources for Wikipedia isn't there, that would tell me what is legal to cite and technical things like that. Thanks alot for the input. Junolupus 22:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Capresso, Jura-Capresso, and Michael Kramm

Hello!

I just finished editing the Capresso entry I posted last week. I added references, took out information on the product line, and changed the language. What do you think?

Also, do you think I should combine these three entries into one? Any suggestions on editing the Jura-Capresso and Michael Kramm entries?

I really appreicate your help! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 October 2007

Well, one of those does not exist apparently was speedied, and we accept one request at a time anyway, for obvious reasons, so on which article do you want to focus? Adrian M. H. 17:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you could focus on Capresso, that would be wonderful. I've worked a lot on that one, and it has been recently revised. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 October 2007
OK. I'll take a look and get back to you. By the way; please remember to sign and indent. Adrian M. H. 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Biomusic

I would appreciate any suggestions on how I can make this article better. Thank You! --S.dedalus 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Paddlewheel Excursions (formerly Western Cruise)

Hello, I am a former employee of cedar point, and a former Paddlewheel Captain. I created this page to expand a little bit on paddlewheel. I did not cite specific references, because there aren't any. The only reference I have is my first hand experience as a captain. I would like to improve this, but am not sure if there is any way to do so. If somebody could please help me out, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshogan1 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 October 2007

Since you have admitted that there are no references and it is all based on your own experience, it fails two key policies as well as the notability guideline. Adrian M. H. 10:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As an employee doesnt this make me a firsthand resource? Dshogan1 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, you have not read any of the pages to which I have linked. If you had, you would know that you cannot be a source. Source material for verification must be published by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, be that primary or secondary in nature. There are specific scenarios that allow for exemption of the need for independence, dependent on the nature of the claim being verified, but that certainly does not apply here. Notability is established by non-trivial treatments from independent reliable sources that focus on the subject in question. Adrian M. H. 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking over a Google-cached copy of the deleted article, it looks like the first concern would be the non-encyclopedic nature of much of the contribution. You might want to consider setting up your own web site if that is the type of material you want to cover. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

help on merits and limitations of ICD of classification of psychiatric illness

hello my name is ranjeet. i have a question that im looking for a comprehensive report/ ppt presentation about merits and limitations of ICD of classification of psychiatric illness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.23.153 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2007

This is not in the remit of RFF, Ranjeet. See the header for a brief explanation of what this page is here for. You might like to try the miscellaneous section of the Ref Desk. Adrian M. H. 12:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Undular bore

Hi. I created this article after reading a LiveScience article (because I was "bore"d, get it?), and was very surprised that there hadn't been an article already. Please make this article better. Yes I know it's too short, but I always find what I can about a subject and write a stub about it. Please look into it (preferably ASAP). It needs more info. Try to find more sources and improve the reference markup. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you want Requests for expansion rather than RFF! Either that or request help from whichever WikiProject is most applicable. Adrian M. H. 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

London Borough of Croydon

Hi, I've worked extensivley on improving this article and if the outcome of this is good I may ask for a peer review. I would appreciate any suggestions on how I can make it better after it failed a GA review. Thank You from Pafcool2 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of obvious points after a brief scan: The first thing that strikes me (almost literally) is the sheer frequency of the words "Croydon" and "London" in various forms. The first sentence is particularly clunky, and not just for that reason. I can see some repeated links as well (South London and Central Croydon, for example). PR is perpetually backlogged, so you probably won't gain anything by taking it there. Adrian M. H. 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but the uses of the words Croydon and London is hard to avoid in this article (named London Borough of Croydon).Pafcool2 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you strangely decided to duplicate your response onto my talk page, I will duplicate my response here: it would not be hard at all and only takes some care and imagination. Adrian M. H. 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Feedback request

I am building a wiki page about a company and am trying to keep it informative vs being an advertisement. If you could give me some feedback on how to make this happen I would appreciate it. You can view the proposed page on my userspace at User:Cwacker1/MPLS-Experts I would prefer to here from people in the telecommunications/IT field as they understand what are true benefits of MPLS vs blatant advertisements. Please post in the discussion of the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwacker1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 October 2007

First of all, much, if not most of the article is about the MPLS technology. That belongs in the Multiprotocol Label Switching article, not in the article about the company. (For all I know, it's already there, in which case the massive duplication is totally wrong.) If the company (say) writes all its programs in C++, you wouldn't expect to find a long discussion about the advantages of that language in the article, yes?
Second, regarding the section that is a list of service providers, that should be removed - see WP:NOT. Similarly, the external links section needs to be pruned back to basically a link to the company's website, per WP:EL.
Those changes will make the article much, much shorter. It will also expose whether the company is notable enough to have had news stories and other reliable sources report on it. If not, then you're going to have real problems making this a real article. If so, then it will be a short article, which is okay - this is a new, small company, and a short article is appropriate for that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

jann haworth

My article about this artist was deleted on 16th September 2007 by Ben Schumin for lack of notability. Since then i have been helped by Adrian M H, who has advised me to contact Mr Schumin to see whether the article can be made acceptable, but I am not sure how to contact Mr Schumin. I have at least 11 verifiable book sources which reference this artist's work. Severy 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You can contact him via his talk page at User talk:Schuminweb. Adrian M. H. 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Anatolia

I have seriously revised many portions of this article, and I would love some feedback on the sections I have done so far, basically to the the Mithridatic Wars. What can I do to improve? Any problems? I was hoping for feedback, but as of yet I haven't gotten a response. Let me know! Thanks! Monsieurdl 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Academy of Dramatic Arts & Director Simon Longmore

Hi I am just checking as to whether my copyright info is actually being submitted or if I am doing it wrong. Thanks, I haven't been able to view the pages so I have a feeling I am missing something. Chrissybug66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissybug66 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 October 2007

That is not much information to go on, and it is not clear what you are asking, but it looks as if you might be better off asking at the help desk. RFF is for getting feedback about significant contribs to any specific article. Adrian M. H. 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

requesting on forgot password

I am recently created an account on 11-10-2007, but in this i am forgot my password. In this please help me and my e-mail address <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.233.130 (talk • contribs)

Hi. First of all, I don't think this is the right place. Try the Wikipedia Help desk. Second, please do not give us your email address. This makes it public on Wikipedia and very public throughout the Internet, making you a potential target for spammers. We can reply through whatever page you editted on, or through your talk page. Third, please sign your comments using 4 tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~ . You are welcome to edit without an account, although using an account has its benefits. Next time, if you choose to create a new account, please make a password that is hard to guess but easy for you to remember, or check the "remember me" box. I am going to post this comment at the Help Desk, so you will probably find any answers there. ~AH1(TCU) 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi there, I think you can revive your password through your email account or you can link when you log in here in forgot password link. Then, they will send your password in your email account.--Nicolealmer 16:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Caparo T1

I have since rewritten this article (diff link), and am currently working hard to improve it. Before I tended to it, it was a short paragraph and a list of features and specifications copied directly for the Caparo website. I have rewritten it into a well-structured article, with most, if not all, information present (that could be cited.) —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got much time to look it over right now, though I will do so if I can. It looks neat at first glance. In the meantime, you might want to include this. Worth a mention. Adrian M. H. 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It was in the Trivia section I had recently removed, however, I cannot figure out what section to put it in. Trivia doesn't seem appropriate. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I would avoid using a trivia heading even for things that may be trivial. Sometimes, tangential but noteworthy facts can get branded as trivia, simply by being tangential, but that doesn't necessarily prohibit their inclusion. It is always best to work it into the text elsewhere anyway. It's a notable event that received coverage in multiple sources, so I think you could just write a paragraph on it at the end of the article. Adrian M. H. 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I have implemented it in the article without the use of "Trivia." —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania III

Requesting feedback on this recently re-written article. I want to know what people think.Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

...anyone...? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Catherine T. MacArthur

I wrote the Catherine T. MacArthur article, because when they mention the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation – Is it an exaggeration to say 1,000 times everyday on PBS stations throughout the U.S. (and probably on their sponsored programming throughout world) I realized I had no idea who she was. Same when the Genius Grants are made and they are the 3rd or 4th national story of that day

I included all the news and wiki-allowable info on her that I know without doing “research” or anything else that wiki would forbid (like adding my opinions or thoughts) and yet stamped about its top is now: The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies,blah-blah

Crappy poorly written article written by a troglodyte? OK I can accept that. Silly scribbling of an imbecile? Fine, got it I don’t entirely disagree.

Not notable though? That strikes me as absolutely absurd. Short of linking to everyplace the foundation is mentioned on-line can you suggest some ideas?

Thanks in advance

Khan Noonian Singh 20:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated notability. In fact, you have barely even asserted it. It is a candidate for AFD as it stands. I expect that you are already familiar with the requirements of WP:N and WP:V, but this article fails to meet either of them. Adrian M. H. 23:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
And you might want to review WP:RS as well; there is a world of source material beyond the internet, amazingly, which too few editors ever actually utilise. Adrian M. H. 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

F.C. Copenhagen

I would appreciate any suggestions on how I can make this article better and perhaps gain GA-status. Thanks. kalaha 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Add references to the history section; try to reduce the quantity of refs in the season by season table; lose the address; merge the sponsorships into another section; avoid incorrect plurals (such as "they have" instead of "it has"); fix the cite error. Otherwise, it is a good effort. Fix all of the above and you won't have much to do to pass GA. Adrian M. H. 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If I am going to merge the references in the season-by-season-table, where am I going to place the reference? kalaha 11:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind... kalaha 17:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story

This 'article' is the result of some effort by me and a few other wikipedians. However, mainly due to the fact that we are unable to get more reliable sources we are forced to keep it on the project page. I'd appreciate any help. U5K0 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Much has been done to the ECS article since its promotion of A-Class article status. I'd be grateful if other editors would offer suggestions for what might yet need to be done for promotion to FA status. Jancarhart 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Any article of this standard belongs at peer review. Adrian M. H. 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rubiks Cube (not created yet)

Hi. Milaneus (talk · contribs) has mentioned (on MSN) that he wanted an article on his band, "Rubiks Cube". I'm not ready to create an article yet, as I'm not sure if it meets notability. Yes I looked through WP:MUSIC, and it apparently meets several of the criteria. Here's a sandbox version of it.

'''Rubiks Cube''' is a three-person youth [[Indie Rock]] [[band]] located in Southern [[Ontario]]. They have performed in 3 semi-public concerts. They have had associations with [[Courtesy Blush]], and have genres similar to that of [[The Used]], [[Incubus]], [[Billy Talent]], [[Wolfmother]], [[The Mars Volta]], [[Queens of the Stone Age]], [[Queen]], [[The Beatles]], [[Cult (band|Cult]], and [[My Chemical Romance]]. They have had many previous names and have exsisted for around four years. {{Infobox musical artist | Img = | Img_capt = | Img_size = | Name = Rubiks Cube | Background = group_or_band | Origin = Southern [[Ontario]], [[Canada]] | Genre = [[Indie Rock]] | Years_active = [[2003]] - present | Label = | Associated_acts = }}

The infobox usually goes at the top. Auroranorth (sign) 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiromi Shinya

I wrote the article for Hiromi Shinya and am in a situation involving conflict of interest. I would greatly appreciate any experienced Wikipedian looking at the article for neutrality and for general format, as it is my first article. I also would appreciate anyone with knowledge of Japanese doing a small amount of research on Hiromi Shinya--especially on his written work--as he is much more well known in Japan, and I can only assume more information about him exists in Japanese. I have posted additional pertinent information in the talk page for Hiromi Shinya. Thank you. Nik-renshaw 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? The article is quite short. Apparently this feedback request thing is a rather slow process, unless your question is inherently flawed? --Nik-renshaw 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is slow because there is only one editor who is willing to spend any time here on a regular basis, and that's me. I don't have much to say about this article apart from the fact that it is quite well written but your sources are weak: a bio from the website of his clinic (not an independent source) and a synopsis from a book seller don't really meet the requirements. How about some coverage in newspapers and medical or health journals? The claims of notability all there, which is great, but the sources don't back it up. Adrian M. H. 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That is rough for you. Anyway, the bio is only used to provide information in, I believe, two places, about his place of birth, and the title of his residency at some point, which I felt met the requirements for use of non-independent sources. And the book is currently being released in the U.S., so there is little information on it thus far. I did not think that a bio from the publisher was a stretch at this stage--as it contains no praise or criticism--but I will definitely update once more is available in the coming months. Reviews, interviews, media coverage, what have you. The rest of the article is from the medical journal Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, which I think is a fine source to demonstrate notability in that field. Anyway, the biggest problem--as I state in the talk page--is that the majority of literature on him appears to be in Japanese, and my patience with Google-translated pages only extends so far. However, I am on top of the situation, and I expect the dearth of material on him in English to meet its end in the coming months, and I intend to continually update the biography with well-sourced material as it is becomes available. Otherwise, if you know the best way for me to find someone willing to do some research in Japanese, I am all ears. Thanks for reading it, and I apologize for griping. I could try to help out here, but I don't know what good I may be, since I've only been a Wikipedian for about 1.5 months, very part-time. --Nik-renshaw 06:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I have another question: Am I allowed to quote copyrighted material on Wikipedia? My understanding of the whole GNU/Public domain/free sources/whatever article was that I should avoid it if possible. I found some quotations in the medical journal quite illustrative, but I edited them out in favor of paraphrase, according to my interpretation of public domain/free use policy, after reading it. Thanks. --Nik-renshaw 06:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I always avoid quoting in that way. Google translations? Often useless, but occasionally unintentionally hilarious! Post a message for assistance at WikiProject Japan if it's still active, or if not, make use of the User ja category to find an editor who is fluent in Japanese and English and perhaps willing to assist. That med journal is a very good source, but the publisher's bio, neutral though it is, could be brought into question; because it is not independent, it does not indicate notability. It's not a big issue for me in light of his achievements, but it's something to be aware of. I'm impressed by your keenness to continue to develop the article; I wish more new editors did that. Adrian M. H. 14:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. I dropped a line at the WikiProject Japan page, so hopefully I can get proper sourcing into the authorship section soon. Also, I was wondering if my section titles were too specific or clumsily named, thereby restricting future growth of the article. I tried to read up on as much as I could about conventions in article creation, but it's no substitute for experience. --Nik-renshaw 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, they're fine. There's nothing to prevent anyone from changing them if it is required in the future. Adrian M. H. 13:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Health Realization

I am concerned about the choice of words in the presentation of the tenets of this belief system/therapy. It may be an NPOV problem, IMHO. In the presentation the words "awareness" and "realization" are often used in a way that implies the underlying truth of what the "student" is being led to. In addition, the article still feels to me as if it is directed to a reader who is a potential true believer in the system, rather than a sceptical outsider. As a result it doesn't seem neutral to me. Rather than letting this come to some kind of dispute, I would like others to look at the article a leave feedback. DCDuring 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it, and I was skeptical at first by looking at the sources, a lot of which were from Banks, Mills, and their center at West Virginia. Then I looked onwards to the various different places this has been encountered, the presentations to the APA, etc., and I think that it is more of a source problem than anything else. You are correct when you say that the definition of innate health is not there, and [3] is not acceptable at all. This needs cleanup, and I found the very place to go: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/wviih/pdfs/Melissa Baker's Article in ABMP magazine.pdf on page 90 of the article. THIS should be referenced and expanded to give the definition of innate health- the talk page isn't the place for the definition only. NPOV in this article is missing because of two reasons: References to criticisms are notably absent, which needs work, and the objections raised which are noted are from the proponents themselves, which is odd. If this article is cleaned up to read more like an encyclopedia and less like a dissertation on why HR works, then you have something. Also, I would can the multiple-referenced sentences- they are very distracting. Monsieurdl 19:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I do plan to add a referenced definition of "innate health."
"References to criticisms" are lacking in the article, not because of the point of view of the article but because of the lack of attributed criticism that can be found in published materials. What little attributed criticism has been found has been included and presented neutrally. If necessary I can remove all unattributed objections, but this seems to me to reduce the article's balance, not improve it.
Multiple-referenced sentences are there because of the previous requests for more neutral and/or peer-reviewed references to assure a neutral point of view. Can you suggest a way to handle this so that the requested documentation does not reduce readability? RRWayne 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rainhill

Recently I have worked a fair bit on Rainhill, though I never initially created the article, and I am pretty proud of how it has developed. It is my home village so I am getting around to taking some photos to improve the article but can anybody else help with what other content I should add? So far I have basically completely changed the layout of the page and added references and bits of other content. Thanks DoyleyTalk 07:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's not a bad effort. I have copy-edited it for grammar, style and punctuation and provided HTML comments at relevant junctures of which you should take note. Remember to remove them when dealt with. Points for attention include:
  • Footnote formatting needs to follow the layouts at WP:CITET, though use of the templates themselves is entirely optional and not particularly recommended by me if you don't want to do too much typing and pasting.
  • Footnotes should be positioned immediately after punctuation.
  • More citations are needed (tagged accordingly) even if you use repeat refs (use the naming system).
  • Some explanatory wikilinks are needed for international readers (see comments).
  • Don't place external links in body text.
  • Watch your punctuation and spelling; I fixed a US spelling that should be a UK spelling.
  • Categories are added in square brackets, which I fixed for you.
  • Watch the red links; if the subject is not actually notable, there is really no benefit to a red link (it looks messy without good reason and can encourage novices to create yet more non-notable content). I would question the notability of some of those red linked items. For example, Michael Abram might be a BLP1E case.
  • The lede should precis the essence of the article, but it instead contains some content that belongs elsewhere and is not expanded upon elsewhere. Adrian M. H. 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for your help. It will keep me busy for a while so I will crack on with it and post again when I think it is up to scratch. DoyleyTalk 15:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You may want to consider changing the caption of The Rocket photo to clarify that it is not currently in Rainhill. Regards—G716 <T·C> 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cherine Anderson - First "new article"

Greetings, folks. This is my first new article, and I've already learned a ton. I'm working out how to present references and links (perhaps I was a bit excessive in that regard), and there's another section I want to add about Reggae Festivals she's performed at (I saw her live at a festival and was blown away!).

I seem to be getting by, learning some of the in's and out's of Wikipedia composition, but I find the documentation very difficult to sift through (e.g. it can take an hour to figure out how to use a minute function - between finding a relevant entry, looking up the accepted use, finding documentation on how to use the function, figuring out the code and syntax required, and finding examples of how to use in a real article.) Am I missing some major resource for figuring out how to do things quickly?

grrr... I bet it's gonna take me 20 minutes to figure out how to get this talk page on some sort of hot list that people will see and respond to... heck, it took me 10 minutes to find out that the only way to make a paragraph "tabbed-in" like this one is to create a damn table
I got lucky - only took about 5 mins...

Please review the page, it's structure, style, and accuracy, and provide any helpful critiques or suggested reading.

Thanks!

- Caen 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Very briefly, the most obvious and easy fixes are: footnote format; EL format; lack of infobox. Adrian M. H. 22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Also on the quick fix list -- refs should come before EL Regards—G716 <T·C> 21:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First Article created!! Dwarf Athletic Association of America

Hello! I've been editing behind the scenes for a while and have completely reworked a few articles, but I had never created my own article. So, after watching Little People, Big World I wanted to see if there was an article on the Dwarf Athletic Association of America. I couldn't find one, so I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to write my first article. I was hoping someone (or many people) could take a look at the artice and give me some feed back. I think this is an important topic that deserves a place here and I hope I created a well enough article to be expanded on in the future. You can find it at Dwarf Athletic Association of America. Thanks in advance for you feedback, I appreciate it! Josborne2382 04:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very good, one suggestion would be to tidy up the references. Rather than just putting the site, do it like this: {{cite web |url=website |title=name of what you want the ref to be |work=who made the reference, website etc. |accessdate=date, e.g., 7 November |accessyear=year, 2007}}

— jacĸrм (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much for the feedback and suggestion, I will do that! Josborne2382 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice start - you can shorten the list of references by naming them, and then referrig to them by name later. I did a couple as an example. Also, I added a category - you may want to see if there are any others that are appropriate for your article. Regards—G716 <T·C> 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks much for the feedback! Josborne2382 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance with Commercial Revolution article

Hello...I've been expanding what was a small article into a much larger, more comprehensive one, and I'm seeking help on getting more references for it, and to add more text to make it more complete. Also needs a bit of copy-editing. I'm also unsure of when the put the dates of the commercial revolution, either the 1100's (after the Crusades), or the period before Columbus's voyage. Not sure if this is the best place to make this request, so I hope that I'm not overstepping bounds here. I'm the only one working on the article, too. Hires an editor 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Common Cold

I've been working on this article for a few months, and would appreciate any comments. Regards—G716 <T·C> 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought. If I were looking up "common cold" in the encyclopedia, and I didn't know very much medical terminology, and me or my spouse or kids were stuffy and miserable, I would find it a bit humorous and comforting to see something like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Petit_Sammy_%C3%A9ternue.jpg on the article page. It's not technically useful information in any way, but it might cheer someone up! :) And that might keep them reading the more technical information. Like I said, just a thought.... --Busy Stubber 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look at the pic. Regards—G716 <T·C> 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Game

This shows the differences from my first edit to the article to the current version. I have done a lot of minor-medium work, mostly copyediting. Please give me your opinions on anything else that can be done. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Atmosphere International (trade Show)

I'm not sure what to do with this stub article. I came across it when it was clearly an advertisement[37]. It's not a clear advertisement now, but the anon editor(s) don't seem to be doing much to help establish notability. I don't know anything about this trade show. Feedback appreciated. --Busy Stubber 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the latest edits, added the advert tag, and added warnings to the user talk pages of the anon editors. Regards—G716 <T·C> 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks! --Busy Stubber 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The anons are back, so I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. Regards—G716 <T·C> 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful help! --Busy Stubber 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

American Civil Religion

I created this page a year ago. Recently another editor, without contributing anything to the article, put the article up for deletion, partially because he couldn't understand the topic. In response, I rewrote the entire page and added a lot of material. could someone review this article and make some suggestions? Thank you. Travb (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if my thoughts are helpful in a hot debate, so I won't put them on the talk page but put them here.
It might help if you put the article in historical context. What Americans think of as civil law is a bit ambiguous (that's why there's a disambiguity page for it). The American legal system is based on the assumption that all citizens consider the Christian ten commandments to be beyond debate in terms of appropriate personal conduct. The United States wasn't founded by atheists, it was founded by Christians who disagreed with the British concept that a monarch was chosen by God to rule the citizens. Americans believe that citizens should elect their rulers (democracy), and that no one person is "chosen by God" to rule daily life.
"Civil" has come to mean "non-secular" -- whatever best expresses "non-religious-based." The US was established to be respectful of all religions, with the government being impartial to religion. But at that time, the only religions under consideration by the founding fathers were Christian-based. The founding fathers of America did not consider non-Christian religions to be relevant to the new country being established, the USA. They based the laws of the country on the assumption that the citizens were of various deminations within Christianity. At that time, for the American settlers, this was more or less true.
Young editors and readers won't understand American civil religion unless you explain the history. They think that modern American society is unrelated to religious ethics or religious law. It's not that simple, but they don't know that. I think some historical context would help. --Busy Stubber 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Contract J.A.C.K.

Please check the grammer of this article. English is not my main language and so I have difficulties to correct the sentences of this article. D@rk K 10:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Erik Chisholm

Hi, my article has just been rereviewed as a B-class article and I'd really like some advice on how to improve it further so that it can become a good article. Thanks, ---- Cazo3788 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Some observations:
  • I would like to see more paragraph breaks in the text. At present many of the paragraphs run almost the full length of a section. This makes for tiresome reading.
  • The lead should be 2-4 paragraphs, per WP:Lead_section#Length, and be a consise summary of the article.
  • In the "Early life..." section, try not to start all of the first three sentences with "he". It looks unimaginitive.
  • Can you finish up the "Works" section by adding years to the remaining fields?
  • It would be a good idea to properly format the references. For this I recommend Wikipedia:Citation templates.
  • Statements such as "took London by storm" can be considered point of view; not to mention the use of vernacular. Likewise for "...the most famous being..." Such statements can be made if they are an authoritative quote, for example, and/or have a suitable citation. Otherwise I think they should be converted into a more neutral form.
  • "considered left-wing" may not be meaningful for everybody. Perhaps it could be clarified? What does "A composer of audacious, ... symphonies..." mean for somebody who is not very familiar with classical works?
  • For highly notable individuals I like to see a section of "Awards and honors" giving a list of how they have been recognized by others. But that's not suitable for everybody I suppose.
My $.02 worth. I hope this helped a little. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, those were some very helpful comments and will get to work on them soon. ---- Cazo3788 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Review article for neutrality

Could someone please see if the following entry now meets the criteria for neutrality and the warning be removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponseti. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricketrica (talk • contribs)

Sign your name first of all :) I don't think it is neutral yet- the section on Publications is especially bad- it reads like an advertisement. The beginning bolded text is not appropriate for an introduction, and needs revision. The inline references are not done properly as well. -- Monsieurdl (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I recently completed work on the article Harold Innis. I notice it has been given a B rating, but I feel the article is virtually complete and probably deserves a higher rating. Bwark (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New word

I would like to submit the word " Crichtonian" as a new work. Meaning things or ideas that could only be imagined by author Michael Crichton.

  • Sorry but this isn't likely to happen, because:
  1. We tend to not accept neologisms, especially ones that are unsourced. See WP:NEO
  2. Unless they've had a unique cultural impact, individual words don't get their own articles. Some examples of those that do: fuck, truthiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.186.233 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Verify this individual.

I have been contacted by Nadu Ribadu - Bank of Nigeria in regards to inheritance. I would like this verified with all the e-mail scams on bank accounts lately. Please verify. I am looking for a phone number and reason why I was picked. Thank you. sincerely-David O. -SM Troop 1052 -USA. (if not verified - I will contact the FBI to investigate.) 11-19-2007.

Dear David, This page is intended to provide comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have created or substantially changed, and your request is completely unrelated to Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but you will want to contact an organization that can assist you with such issues, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As a note of personal advice, I would ignore such a letter, as it is most likely a scam, as you suspect. If you inherited anything, the chances are a lawyer would have contacted you, not a bank. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 11:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Threat of nuclear weapons in Korean Peninsula

Shall we share the opinions on the above topic? Your valued points of view are appreciated. Ahlong1234 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is intended to provide comments and constructive criticism about articles that you have created or substantially changed, do you have a specific page that you wish feedback on? Ariel♥Gold 11:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

McFly (band)

I've worked on the McFly article for a while (over a year perhaps) along with other fans and I'm unsure on what it needs to be improved. A review or comments would be extremely helpful! --Stacey talk 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Caparo T1

I have previously requested feedback, however no real helpful or in-depth feedback was given. I was hoping for another look at it. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Soroban

This article is about Japanese abacus known as the soroban. It was originally a redirect to the abacus article, and I changed it to a full fledged article (diff) because in the talk page for the "abacus" article, there was a discussion to split up the article into ones discussing each type of abacus. The Chinese abacus, the suanpan, already has its own article so I was compelled to do the same, using what I have learned about it (with references listed, of course). Except for a correction by Pandacomics (talk · contribs) and a few spam edits by an IP anon, I'm the only one working on this article. I'm asking for any feedback, suggestions, or improvements on the article. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article should have more explanation on how a soroban is acutually used, what a multipication table is for, a discription of the standard method, ect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.165.229 (talk • contribs)

I think that's an awesome article A+ well done--207.61.173.135 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

Nemertea

Nemertea I need to get this to GA status as soon as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Chaucer (talk • contribs)

You might try signing and adding the date to your request. Some suggestions:
  • It could use some pictures and/or illustrations.
  • Citations should always follow punctuation.
  • There are several single-sentence paragraphs. I'd recommend expanding them or merging with another paragraph.
  • Can the Anatomy and Length sections be merged?
  • For the longer specimens, is the width proportional to the length? If not, how wide do they get? What is their mass?
  • Could the article explain 'stylet'?
  • You need a reference for the etymology in the lead.
Other than that, I'd recommend looking at some of the articles in the Biology section of Wikipedia:Featured_articles for ideas. I hope this was of some help.—RJH (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Earth science

Hello. I've made some improvements to Earth science including adding references and citations. I hope so much that it's at least good-article quality . Could someone please evaluate it for me?--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So does anyone have any comments?--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think a good example of a general subject article is Biology. You might take a look at how they did their page for ideas.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--Mumia-w-18 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive Therapy

 One Sentence was changed and a reference for it was added. The references did not move down one # as expected.

Added balance to the statement, i.e. truth/reality, as in "9-11 Was An Inside Job" with Stephen Jones for a reference. Please see my discussion section page... The # citation works as a link to where the reference should be. BUT there is no reference. There is a lot of overwrite mess now on the reference section. Can't fix it, as you can tell from my history page - spent some effort trying! I don't believe that what I did - created the mess, as I followed the template, so it should at least appear in error if a minor mistake was made in it. But in truth - adding this single reference is a lot like Jones's analysis of trade center dust in that it kinda makes the commission report meaningless - all by itself.

 Wolfdeck
  • I fixed a broken <ref> element. Now at least the references show up (smile). Electroconvulsive Therapy still needs some work. Right now I have other things to do, but when I'm done I'll take another look at the article. Otherwise good job Wolfdeck.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bury St. Edmunds witch trial

I have done the majority of work on this article and before I lose myself can someone have a glance and see if I am heading in the right direction (ish). Thanks Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenia

This is main article about Armenia country. It is a product of collaboration of many people.I became frequent contributor there recently. Any constructive feedback even about minor details or syntaxes (preferably from native or near native knowledge of English language) will be very welcome. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 900 meters, use 900 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 900&nbsp;meters.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), categorise (B) (American: categorize), ization (A) (British: isation), any more (B) (American: anymore), jewelry (A) (British: jewellery), program (A) (British: programme).
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting List of subnational entities

I'm working on the list formatting task at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, on reformatting the lists on List of subnational entities. It seemed to me that this info would fit well in a table, so I've started formatting it that way on the page linked in this section title. The page isn't finished, but I'd appreciate knowing if others think the table format I came up with is worth pursuing. Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Zinfandel

Would welcome some feedback on where Zinfandel stands at the moment. We've a bit of a debate going on how big the "USA" section is going to be, but the West Coast wine fans are working on that, so really I'm more interested in how the remaining 90% of the article looks to other people. In my limited experience it 'feels' like it's probably in the region of a good GA but am open to comments, and would welcome suggestions for anything that needs doing to get it up to say an A (or even FA perhaps?) Obviously stability is one thing we haven't yet got, but that will come.... FlagSteward (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Capresso

Hi,

I wrote a "Request for Feedback" question a couple of months ago. I can't find the answer to my question in the past responses, so I thought I'd start over again.

There are a couple of stamps on the Capresso page that I created, and I was wondering if an editor could take a look at the revisions I added to the page. If my revisions still do not meet Wikipedia standards, I'd like some tips on how to do so.

Thanks for your help! Scsbn4 (Talk) 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is that you make no effort to demonstrate that Capresso is notable. See this page for how to do that, or the article of a big company such as BAE Systems for an example - you'll find lots of references at the bottom where BAE is mentioned in national newspapers such as the Financial Times or the Guardian. That proves that BAE is regarded as notable by trustworthy third parties, and is the best way to prove that the article is not just somebody writing about their own company for promotional purposes. Other Wikipedia 'how to' articles you may want to read include WP:CITE, WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. FlagSteward (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Creek, Montana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Creek%2C_Montana

Eagle Creek, Montana is a fictional town wherein live the characters from the novel Sarah Conrad of Eagle Creek. For some reason, the webpage is active, meaning I have a link but I cannot find "Eagle Creek, Montana" in the wiki search engine. Additionally, the whole "untagged images" thing is confusing. I have read the tutorial but I still cannot understand why my first two images were fine and the third was not. I cannot find a way to delete the image which is what I'd like to do. Anyway, I would appreciate some feedback. Jason Goldtrap (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The fact that it's about the setting of a first book suggests that it's unlikely to be notable enough to go into Wikipedia. The fact that the book was written by a Jason Goldtrap suggests that there's probably a major conflict of interest here. I've put it up for deletion. On the search thing, it is there now, so there was probably just a slight delay in it getting indexed by the search engine. FlagSteward (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

List of prehistoric bony fish (Osteichthyes)

I used Sepkoski's online marine fossil genera database to compile a list of bony fish that are known from the fossil record. I have marked extinct genera with daggers (†), and bolded fossil genera that have managed to survive to the present day. I've worked really hard on it, and was hoping someone could give me some feedback or advice. Thank you! Abyssal leviathin (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • As a non-specialist, it looks like you've done a nice job - all those red links should keep someone busy!!! I've tweaked the TOC to use one of the standard templates, which is just a bit cleaner and centred. To be honest, you're probably better off asking for advice on some of the dedicated Project boards such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Extinction - the latter might be the best place to start, then if you don't get a response there, try Biology. People can get very picky about getting taxonomy right, and it makes sense to run as many eyeballs past it as possible before starting to fill in all those red links. FlagSteward (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrote a new article but is not public within Wikipedia

Hello,

I finished writing a new article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semiotic_Matrix_Theory_%28SMT%29&oldid=180254159

but is not public yet. What I am doing wrong?

Thank you in advance!

Chitola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.184.140 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 26 December 2007

It seems that when you were not logged in, VOA Bot II mistook your edits as "test edits." See your diff as 64.33.184.140 to determine why this might happen, and look at the history.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


<edit conflict>Hello! The article Semiotic Matrix Theory (SMT) is indeed publicly available already, notice that the link works just fine. The source of your confusion may be that your article was not yet listed in the search index- that index often takes some time to update so don't sweat it. You also seem to have done some editing while logged out of your account (as in your post to this very forum). You might want to double check your logged in status while making edits- the edit window will warn you if you're editing while logged out.
Your article is well referenced and authoritatively written. However, the first thing that struck me about the article is that I couldn't figure out what the heck this thing was until most of the way through it. You need to include a lead section that succinctly explains what the subject of the article is because since this is an encyclopedia you have to assume that people are looking up the article because the don't know what it is. The language of the whole article should also be written with a more general audience in mind, You need to explain jargon to people who may not be familiar with the words you are using. You might also consider using footnotes for your citations. More links from and to related articles would also be very helpful. All in all I do think it's a very informative article, thanks for adding it.
I'll be adding a welcome template with some useful links to your logged in account's talk page, hope you find it useful. Happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

History of collegiate wrestling

I've just created this article fairly recently (after the History section on the Collegiate wrestling page had been taking up loads of kilobytes) and have been editing this article either signed in or logged off on my own or at a public computer for some time now. Even though I'm not a wrestler, I've tried to make sure that this article is accurate and consistent with the sources I've been able to find. Please check behind me, and correct and improve not only this article, but also the History sections on the Collegiate wrestling and Scholastic wrestling pages where approrpiate. I'm mainly interested in improvements to all of the sections for accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

There has been a question that has been on my mind for some time. In the section on the 20th century, I've pointed out that the first college dual meet took place between Yale and UPenn in 1900. I've cited the sources I found that information from appropriately. Other sources, such as the article on this website at http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/article.asp?intID=2084, point out that the first college dual meet took place between Yale and Columbia in 1903. Is one right and the other wrong, or could both events be added to the article and clarified somehow?

Could someone please also add accurate and cited information regarding the development of American wrestling at the high school level?

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to know if this article is at least B class. I would like to see this article become a Good Article, if not an A Class or a Featured article in the near future.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've submitted the same information in a Peer Review request, but just in case this article was not developed enough for other people's taste, I've submitted it here as well.

USA Wrestling

This is a new article that I just created, because there was hardly any information on the USA Wrestling (USAW) from any other articles on Wikipedia. As you can tell from the article, USA Wrestling is the national governing body for freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling in the United States. I've tried to outline its history, structure, and current events and activities.

I'm mainly interested in improvements to all of the sections in terms of accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. I would particularly be interested in more detailed expansions of the other sections besides the History section. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to see this article become at least B class in the near future. Please give your feedback.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles

I've tried to improve the article on the Interational Association of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) with information on FILA's history and current structure, events, and activities. I've gotten information mainly from the FILA website, but someone else has pointed out (as can be seen in the tag) that there should also be third-party sources to back up my information. At the present time, I haven't been able to find any.

I'm mainly interested in improvements to all of the sections in terms of accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to see this article become at least B class in the near future. Please give your feedback.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)